Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Jul 25;7(7):CD002912.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002912.pub7.

Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women

Marie Carmela M Lapitan  1 , June D Cody, Atefeh Mashayekhi
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women

Marie Carmela M Lapitan et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Urinary incontinence is a common and potentially debilitating problem. Stress urinary, incontinence as the most common type of incontinence, imposes significant health and economic burdens on society and the women affected. Open retropubic colposuspension is a surgical treatment which involves lifting the tissues near the bladder neck and proximal urethra in the area behind the anterior pubic bones to correct deficient urethral closure to correct stress urinary incontinence.

Objectives: The review aimed to determine the effects of open retropubic colposuspension for the treatment of urinary incontinence in women. A secondary aim was to assess the safety of open retropubic colposuspension in terms of adverse events caused by the procedure.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 5 May 2015), and the reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted investigators to locate extra studies.

Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with symptoms or urodynamic diagnoses of stress or mixed urinary incontinence that included open retropubic colposuspension surgery in at least one trial group.

Data collection and analysis: Studies were evaluated for methodological quality or susceptibility to bias and appropriateness for inclusion and data extracted by two of the review authors. Trial data were analysed by intervention. Where appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated.

Main results: This review included 55 trials involving a total of 5417 women.Overall cure rates were 68.9% to 88.0% for open retropubic colposuspension. Two small studies suggested lower incontinence rates after open retropubic colposuspension compared with conservative treatment. Similarly, one trial suggested lower incontinence rates after open retropubic colposuspension compared to anticholinergic treatment. Evidence from six trials showed a lower incontinence rate after open retropubic colposuspension than after anterior colporrhaphy. Such benefit was maintained over time (risk ratio (RR) for incontinence 0.46; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.72 before the first year, RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.51 at one to five years, RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.75 in periods beyond five years).Evidence from 22 trials in comparison with suburethral slings (traditional slings or trans-vaginal tape or transobturator tape) found no overall significant difference in incontinence rates in all time periods evaluated (as assessed subjectively RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.18, within one year of treatment, RR 1.18; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.39 between one and five years, RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27 at five years and more, and as assessed objectively RR 1.24; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.67 within one year of treatment, RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.54 for one to five years follow up, RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.64 at more than five years). However, subgroup analysis of studies comparing traditional slings and open colposuspension showed better effectiveness with traditional slings in the medium and long term (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64 from one to five years follow up, RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.37).In comparison with needle suspension, there was a lower incontinence rate after colposuspension in the first year after surgery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03), after the first year (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81), and beyond five years (RR 0.32; 95% CI 15 to 0.71).Patient-reported incontinence rates at short, medium and long-term follow-up showed no significant differences between open and laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, but with wide confidence intervals. In two trials incontinence was less common after the Burch (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76) than after the Marshall Marchetti Krantz procedure at one to five year follow-up. There were few data at any other follow-up times.In general, the evidence available does not show a higher morbidity or complication rate with open retropubic colposuspension compared to the other open surgical techniques, although pelvic organ prolapse is more common than after anterior colporrhaphy and sling procedures. Voiding problems are also more common after sling procedures compared to open colposuspension.

Authors' conclusions: Open retropubic colposuspension is an effective treatment modality for stress urinary incontinence especially in the long term. Within the first year of treatment, the overall continence rate is approximately 85% to 90%. After five years, approximately 70% of women can expect to be dry. Newer minimal access sling procedures look promising in comparison with open colposuspension but their long-term performance is limited and closer monitoring of their adverse event profile must be carried out. Open colposuspension is associated with a higher risk of pelvic organ prolapse compared to sling operations and anterior colporrhaphy, but with a lower risk of voiding dysfunction compared to traditional sling surgery. Laparoscopic colposuspension should allow speedier recovery but its relative safety and long-term effectiveness is not yet known. A Brief Economic Commentary (BEC) identified five studies suggesting that tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and laparoscopic colposuspension may be more cost-effective compared with open retropubic colposuspension.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Marie Carmela Lapitan: none known June Cody: none known Atefeh Mashayekhi: This project, to add Brief Economic Commentaries to our 'Surgery for UI in women' reviews, was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), via the Cochrane Review Incentive Scheme 2016, to the Cochrane Incontinence Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Figures

1
1
PRISMA study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Open retropubic colposuspension versus conservative interventions, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence within first year (subjective).
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Open retropubic colposuspension versus conservative interventions, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence not improved within first year (subjective).
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Open retropubic colposuspension versus conservative interventions, Outcome 3 Number with incontinence within the first year (objective).
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Open retropubic colposuspension versus conservative interventions, Outcome 4 Number with de novo detrusor instability.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Open retropubic colposuspension versus conservative interventions, Outcome 5 Number with other complication inherent to procedure.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Open retropubic colposuspension versus drug therapy, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence within first year (subjective).
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Open retropubic colposuspension versus drug therapy, Outcome 2 Condition specific health measure.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence within first year (subjective).
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence after first year but before five years (subjective).
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 3 Number with incontinence after five years (subjective).
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 4 Number with incontinence within the first year (objective).
4.5
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 5 Number with incontinence after first and before five years (objective).
4.6
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 6 Number with incontinence at and after five years (objective).
4.7
4.7. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 7 Volume/weight of urine loss in 2 hour pad test.
4.8
4.8. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 8 Condition specific health measure.
4.9
4.9. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 9 Operative time (minutes).
4.10
4.10. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 10 Length of hospital stay (days).
4.11
4.11. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 11 Time to catheter removal (days).
4.12
4.12. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 12 Number of perioperative surgical complications.
4.13
4.13. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 13 Number with de novo urge symptoms and urge incontinence.
4.14
4.14. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 14 Number with de novo detrusor instability.
4.15
4.15. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 15 Number with voiding difficulty.
4.16
4.16. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 16 Number with new or recurrent prolapse.
4.17
4.17. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 17 Number with repeat anti‐incontinence surgery.
4.18
4.18. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 18 Number with other complication inherent to procedure.
4.19
4.19. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 19 Number not cured within first year (subjective) Burch vs MMK.
4.20
4.20. Analysis
Comparison 4 Open retropubic colposuspension versus anterior colporrhapy, Outcome 20 Number not cured after first year but before five years (subjective) Burch vs MMK.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence within first year (subjective).
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence after first year but before five years (subjective).
5.3
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 3 Number with incontinence after five years (subjective).
5.4
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 4 Number with incontinence not improved within first year (subjective).
5.5
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 5 Number with incontinence not improved after first year but before five years (subjective).
5.6
5.6. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 6 Number with incontinence within the first year (objective).
5.7
5.7. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 7 Number with incontinence after first and before five years (objective).
5.8
5.8. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 8 Number with incontinence at and after five years (objective).
5.9
5.9. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 9 Mean change in IIQ score from baseline.
5.10
5.10. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 10 Operative time (minutes).
5.11
5.11. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 11 Length of hospital stay (days).
5.12
5.12. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 12 Time to catheter removal (days).
5.13
5.13. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 13 Number of perioperative surgical complications.
5.14
5.14. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 14 Number with de novo urge symptoms and urge incontinence.
5.15
5.15. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 15 Number with de novo detrusor instability.
5.16
5.16. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 16 Number with voiding difficulty.
5.17
5.17. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 17 Number with new or recurrent prolapse.
5.18
5.18. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 18 Number with repeat anti‐incontinence surgery.
5.19
5.19. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 19 Number with other complication inherent to procedure.
5.20
5.20. Analysis
Comparison 5 Open retropubic colposuspension versus sling procedure, Outcome 20 Number with bladder perforation.
6.1
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence within first year (subjective).
6.2
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence after first year but before five years (subjective).
6.3
6.3. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 3 Number with incontinence after five years (subjective).
6.4
6.4. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 4 Number with incontinence not improved within first year (subjective).
6.5
6.5. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 5 Number with incontinence not improved after first year but before five years (subjective).
6.6
6.6. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 6 Number with incontinence within the first year (objective).
6.7
6.7. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 7 Number with incontinence after first and before five years (objective).
6.8
6.8. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 8 Number with incontinence at and after five years (objective).
6.9
6.9. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 9 Time to catheter removal (days).
6.10
6.10. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 10 Number of perioperative surgical complications.
6.11
6.11. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 11 Number with de novo urge symptoms and urge incontinence.
6.12
6.12. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 12 Number with de novo detrusor instability.
6.13
6.13. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 13 Number with voiding difficulty.
6.14
6.14. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 14 Number with new or recurrent prolapse.
6.15
6.15. Analysis
Comparison 6 Open retropubic colposuspension versus needle suspension, Outcome 15 Number with other complication inherent to procedure.
7.1
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence within first year (subjective).
7.2
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence after first year but before five years (subjective).
7.3
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 3 Number with incontinence after five years (subjective).
7.4
7.4. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 4 Number with incontinence not improved after first year but before five years (subjective).
7.5
7.5. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 5 Numbers with incontinence within the first year (objective).
7.6
7.6. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 6 Numbers with incontinence after first and before five years (objective).
7.7
7.7. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 7 Numbers with incontinence at and after five years (objective).
7.8
7.8. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 8 General health status measure.
7.9
7.9. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 9 Operative time (minutes).
7.10
7.10. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 10 Length of hospital stay (days).
7.11
7.11. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 11 Time to return to normal activity (days).
7.12
7.12. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 12 Time to catheter removal (days).
7.13
7.13. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 13 Number of perioperative surgical complications.
7.14
7.14. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 14 Number with de novo urge symptoms and urge incontinence.
7.15
7.15. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 15 Number with de novo detrusor instability.
7.16
7.16. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 16 Number with voiding difficulty.
7.17
7.17. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 17 Number with new or recurrent prolapse.
7.18
7.18. Analysis
Comparison 7 Open retropubic colposuspension versus laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, Outcome 18 Number with bladder perforation.
9.1
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence within first year (subjective).
9.2
9.2. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence after first year but before five years (subjective).
9.3
9.3. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 3 Number with incontinence not improved after first year but before five years (subjective).
9.4
9.4. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 4 Number with incontinence within the first year (objective).
9.5
9.5. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 5 Number with incontinence after first and before five years (objective).
9.6
9.6. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 6 Length of hospital stay (days).
9.7
9.7. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 7 Time to catheter removal (days).
9.8
9.8. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 8 Number of perioperative surgical complications.
9.9
9.9. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 9 Number with de novo urge symptoms and urge incontinence.
9.10
9.10. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 10 Number with de novo detrusor overactivity.
9.11
9.11. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 11 Number with voiding difficulty.
9.12
9.12. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 12 Number with new or recurrent prolapse.
9.13
9.13. Analysis
Comparison 9 Burch colposuspension versus MMK, Outcome 13 Number with repeat anti‐incontinence surgery.
10.1
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10 Burch colposuspension versus paravaginal defect repair, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence after first year but before five years (subjective).
10.2
10.2. Analysis
Comparison 10 Burch colposuspension versus paravaginal defect repair, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence not improved within first year (subjective).
10.3
10.3. Analysis
Comparison 10 Burch colposuspension versus paravaginal defect repair, Outcome 3 Number with incontinence after first and before five years (objective).
10.4
10.4. Analysis
Comparison 10 Burch colposuspension versus paravaginal defect repair, Outcome 4 Length of hospital stay (days).
10.5
10.5. Analysis
Comparison 10 Burch colposuspension versus paravaginal defect repair, Outcome 5 Number with de novo urge symptoms and urge incontinence.
10.6
10.6. Analysis
Comparison 10 Burch colposuspension versus paravaginal defect repair, Outcome 6 Number with de novo detrusor instability.
10.7
10.7. Analysis
Comparison 10 Burch colposuspension versus paravaginal defect repair, Outcome 7 Number with voiding difficulty.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Albo 2007 {published data only}
    1. Albo M, Wruck L, Baker J, Brubaker L, Chai T, Dandreo KJ, et al. for the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network (UITN). The relationships among measures of incontinence severity in women undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Journal of Urology 2007;177(5):1810‐4. [sr‐incont23120] - PubMed
    1. Albo ME, Richter HE, Brubaker L, Norton P, Kraus SR, Zimmern PE, et al. for the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network (UITN). Burch colposuspension versus fascial sling to reduce urinary stress incontinence. New England Journal of Medicine 24‐5‐2007;356(21):2143‐55. [sr‐incont23077] - PubMed
    1. Brubaker L. Five year continence rates, satisfaction and adverse events of Burch urethropexy and fascial sling surgery for urinary incontinence (Abstract). European Urology Supplements 2012;11(1):e172. [NCT00064662; TrialID.SISTEr.; sr‐incont62253] - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brubaker L, Barber MD, Nygaard I, Nager CW, Varner E, Schaffer J, et al. Quantification of vaginal support: are continuous summary scores better than POPQ stage?. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2010;203(5):512‐6. [NCT00065845; sr‐incont40592] - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brubaker L, Richter HE, Norton PA, Albo M, Zyczynski HM, Chai TC, et al. 5‐year continence rates, satisfaction and adverse events of Burch urethropexy and fascial sling surgery for urinary incontinence. Journal of Urology 2012;187(4):1324‐30. [NCT00064662; TrialID.SISTEr.; sr‐incont44723] - PMC - PubMed
Ankardal 2001 {published data only}
    1. Ankardal M, Crafoord K, Ekerydh A, Ellstrom M, Franzen K, Olsson J‐H, et al. Burch colposuspension by laparoscopic or abdominal approach: report from a randomised study (Abstract number 302). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 31st Annual Meeting, 18‐21 Sept, Seoul, Korea. 2001. [sr‐incont14383]
    1. Ankardal M, Ekerydh A, Crafoord K, Milsom I, Stjerndahl JH, Engh ME. A randomised trial comparing open Burch colposuspension using sutures with laparoscopic colposuspension using mesh and staples in women with stress urinary incontinence. BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2004;111(9):974‐81. [sr‐incont17915] - PubMed
    1. Ankardal M, Jarbrink K, Milsom I, Heiwall B, Lausten‐Thomsen N, Ellstrom‐Engh M. Comparison of health care costs for open Burch colposuspension, laparoscopic colposuspension and tension‐free vaginal tape in the treatment of female urinary incontinence. Neurourology & Urodynamics 2007;26(6):761‐6. [sr‐incont23845] - PubMed
    1. Ankardal M, Milsom I, Stjerndahl JH, Engh ME. A three‐armed randomized trial comparing open Burch colposuspension using sutures with laparoscopic colposuspension using sutures and laparoscopic colposuspension using mesh and staples in women with stress urinary incontinence. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2005;84(8):773‐9. [sr‐incont20624] - PubMed
Athanassopoulos 1996 {published data only}
    1. Athanasopoulos A, Liatsikos EN, Perimenis P, Barbalias GA. Female stress urinary incontinence: predictive factors for the operative correction (Abstract). International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. 10 1999; Vol. 10, issue Suppl 1:S140. [sr‐incont9840]
    1. Athanassopoulos A, Barbalias G. Burch colposuspension versus Stamey endoscopic bladder neck suspension: a urodynamic appraisal. Urologia Internationalis 1996;56(1):23‐7. [sr‐incont4816] - PubMed
Bai 2005 {published data only}
    1. Bai SW, Sohn WH, Chung DJ, Park JH, Kim SK. Comparison of the efficacy of Burch colposuspension, pubovaginal sling, and tension‐free vaginal tape for stress urinary incontinence. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2005;91(3):246‐51. [sr‐incont21260] - PubMed
Bandarian 2011 {published data only}
    1. Bandarian M, Ghanbari Z, Asgari A. Comparison of transobturator tape (TOT) vs Burch method in treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2011;31(6):518‐20. [sr‐incont41697] - PubMed
Berglund 1996 {published data only}
    1. Berglund AL, Eisemann M, Lalos A, Lalos O. Predictive factors of the outcome of primary surgical treatment of stress incontinence in women. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology 1997;31(1):49‐55. [sr‐incont5650] - PubMed
    1. Berglund AL, Lalos O. The pre‐ and postsurgical nursing of women with stress incontinence. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1996;23(3):502‐11. [sr‐incont2794] - PubMed
    1. Lalos O, Berglund AL, Bjerle P. The long‐term outcome of retropubic urethrocystopexy (sutures and fibrin sealant) and pubococcygeal repair. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2000;79(2):135‐9. [sr‐incont12900] - PubMed
    1. Lalos O, Bergmund AL, Bjerle P. Urodynamics in women with stress incontinence before and after surgery. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 1993;48:197‐205. [sr‐incont4948] - PubMed
Bergman 1989a {published data only}
    1. Bergman A, Ballard CA, Koonings PP. Primary stress urinary incontinence and pelvic relaxation: prospective randomized comparison of 3 different operations (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 1989; Vol. 8, issue 4:334‐5. [sr‐incont4512] - PubMed
    1. Bergman A, Koonings PP, Ballard CA. Primary stress urinary incontinence and pelvic relaxation: prospective randomized comparison of three different operations. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1989;161(1):97‐101. [sr‐incont444] - PubMed
    1. Klutke JJ, Klutke CG, Bergman J, Elia G. Urodynamic changes in voiding after anti‐incontinence surgery: an insight into the mechanism of cure. Urology 1999;54(6):1003‐7. [sr‐incont9121] - PubMed
Bergman 1989b {published data only}
    1. Bergman A, Ballard CA, Koonings PP. Comparison of three different surgical procedures for genuine stress incontinence: prospective randomized study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1989;160(5 Pt 1):1102‐6. [sr‐incont450] - PubMed
    1. Bergman A, Elia G. Three surgical procedures for genuine stress incontinence: five‐year follow‐up of a prospective randomized study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1995;173(1):66‐71. [sr‐incont2962] - PubMed
    1. Elia G, Bergman A. Prospective randomized comparison of 3 surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence: five‐year follow‐up (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 1994; Vol. 13, issue 4:498‐500. [sr‐incont2685]
Burton 1994 {published data only}
    1. Burton G. A five year prospective randomised urodynamic study comparing open and laparoscopic colposuspension (Abstract). International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 1999; Vol. 10, issue Suppl 1:S44‐5. [sr‐incont9841]
    1. Burton G. A five year prospective randomised urodynamic study comparing open and laparoscopic colposuspension (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 1999;18(4):295‐6. [sr‐incont9875]
    1. Burton G. A randomised comparison of laparoscopic and open colposuspension (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics. 13 1994; Vol. 13, issue 4:497‐8. [sr‐incont2684]
    1. Burton G. A three year prospective randomised urodynamic study comparing open and laparoscopic colposuspension (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 1997; Vol. 16, issue 5:353‐4. [sr‐incont5836]
Carey 2000 {published data only}
    1. Carey M, Maher C, Rosamilia A, Cornish A, Ugoni A. Open or laparoscopic colposuspension ‐ a prospective single blinded randomised control trial (Abstract). Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (RANZCOG), July, Cairns. 2000. [sr‐incont12089]
    1. Carey M, Rosamilia A, Maher C, Cornish A, Murray C, Ugoni A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension: A prospective multi‐centre randomised single‐blind comparison (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2000; Vol. 19, issue 4:389‐91. [sr‐incont9868]
    1. Carey MP, Goh JT, Rosamilia A, Cornish A, Gordon I, Hawthorne G, et al. Laparoscopic versus open Burch colposuspension: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2006;113(9):999‐1006. [sr‐incont22334] - PubMed
    1. Carey MP, Maher CF, Rosamilia A, Cornish A, Murray C, Moran P, et al. Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension: early results of a single blind prospective randomized control trial (Abstract number 532). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 29th Annual Meeting, 23‐29 Aug, Denver, Colorado. 1999:224‐5. [sr‐incont8023]
    1. Carey MP, Rosamilia A, Maher C, Tsaltas J. Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension ‐ results of a single blind prospective randomized control trial. IX Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australian Gynaecological Endoscopic Society 99, Adelaide, Australia. 1999:51. [sr‐incont18194]
Colombo 1994 {published data only}
    1. Colombo M, Scalambrino S, Maggioni A, Milani R. Burch colposuspension versus modified Marshall‐Marchetti‐Krantz urethropexy for primary genuine stress urinary incontinence: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;171(6):1573‐9. [sr‐incont3125] - PubMed
    1. Milani R, Maggioni A, Colombo M, Pisani G, Quinto M. Burch colposuspension versus modified Marshall‐Marchetti‐Krantz for stress urinary incontinence: A controlled clinical study (Abstract). Neurology and Urodynamics 1991;10(4):454‐5. [sr‐incont4661]
Colombo 1996 {published data only}
    1. Colombo M, Milani R, Vitobello D, Maggioni A. A randomized comparison of Burch colposuspension and abdominal paravaginal defect repair for female stress urinary incontinence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;175(1):78‐84. [sr‐incont2756] - PubMed
    1. Milani R, Vitobello D, Teruzzi M, Colombo M. Comparison of Burch colposuspension and paravaginal defect repair for patients with genuine stress urinary incontinence (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 25th Annual Meeting, 17‐20 Oct, Sydney, Australia. 1995:475. [sr‐incont9866]
Colombo 2000 {published data only}
    1. Colombo M, Vitobello D, Proietti F, Milani R. Randomised comparison of Burch colposuspension versus anterior colporrhaphy in women with stress urinary incontinence and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2000;107(4):544‐51. [sr‐incont8978] - PubMed
Corcos 2001 {published data only}
    1. Corcos J, Collet JP, Shapiro S, Herschorn S, Radomski SB, Schick E, et al. Multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing surgery and collagen injections for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Urology 2005;65(5):898‐904. [sr‐incont20346] - PubMed
    1. Corcos J, Collet JP, Shapiro S, Schick E, Macramallah E, Tessier J, et al. Surgery vs collagen for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI): results of a multicentric randomized trial (Abstract). Journal of Urology 2001;165(5 Suppl):198. [sr‐incont12912]
    1. Oremus M, Tarride JE. An economic evaluation of surgery versus collagen injection for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Canadian Journal of Urology 2010;17(2):5087‐93. [sr‐incont39605] - PubMed
Demirci 2001 {published data only}
    1. Demirci F, Yucel O. Comparison of free rectus fascial sling and Burch colposuspension procedures in type I and type II genuine stress incontinence (Abstract). International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 2000;11(Suppl 1):S48. [sr‐incont13419]
    1. Demirci F, Yucel O. Comparison of pubovaginal sling and Burch colposuspension procedures in type I/II genuine stress incontinence. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2001;265(4):190‐4. [sr‐incont13079] - PubMed
Drahoradova 2004 {published data only}
    1. Drahoradova P, Masata J, Martan A, Svabik K. Comparative development of quality of life between TVT and Burch colposuspension (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (34th Annual Meeting) and the International UroGynecological Association, 23‐27 August, 2004, Paris. 2004:Abstract number 278. [sr‐incont19049]
El Barky 2005 {published data only}
    1. Barky E, Shazly A, Wahab OA, Kehinde EO, Al Hunayan A, Al Awadi KA. Tension free vaginal tape versus Burch colposuspension for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. International Urology and Nephrology 2005;37(2):277‐81. [sr‐incont20774] - PubMed
El‐Din Shawki 2012 {published data only}
    1. El‐Din Shawki H, Kamel HH, El‐Moghazy DA, El‐Adawy AR, Mohammed HF. The role of transobturator vaginal tape (TVT‐O) and some traditional surgical interventions in the management of female genuine stress urinary incontinence ‐ randomized controlled trial (Abstract number 0217). International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2012;119(Suppl 3):S337. [sr‐incont62241]
Elshawaf 2009 {published data only}
    1. Elshawaf H, Al bahaie Y. Randomized prospective trial comparing Burch colposuspension to tension free vaginal tape and transobturator suburethral tape procedures in treating female genuine stress urinary incontinence (Abstract number 857). Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the International Continence Society (ICS), 2009 Sep 29 ‐ Oct 3, San Francisco, CA 2009. [sr‐incont35631]
Enzelsberger 1996 {published data only}
    1. Enzelsberger H, Helmer H, Schatten C. Comparison of Burch and lyodura sling procedures for repair of unsuccessful incontinence surgery. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;88(2):251‐6. [sr‐incont2759] - PubMed
    1. Enzelsberger H, Kurz C, Seifert M, Raimann H, Schatten C. Surgical treatment of recurrent stress incontinence: Burch versus lyodura sling operation ‐ a prospective study [Zur operativen Behandlung der RezidivstreBinkontinenz: Burch versus Lyoduraschlingeoperation ‐ eine prospektive studie]. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 1993;53(7):467‐71. [sr‐incont100] - PubMed
Fatthy 2001 {published data only}
    1. Fatthy H, Hao M, Samaha I, Abdallah K. Modified Burch colposuspension: laparoscopy versus laparotomy. Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists 2001;8(1):99‐106. [sr‐incont11967] - PubMed
Fischer 2001 {published data only}
    1. Fischer JR, Hale DS, McClellan E, Benson JT. The use of urethral electrodiagnosis to select the method of surgery in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency (Abstract). International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 2001;12(Suppl 1):S33. [sr‐incont12008]
German 1994 {published data only}
    1. German K, Goodman C, Haynes R, Stephenson TP. A randomised trial comparing a modified needle suspension procedure with the vagina/obturator shelf procedure for genuine stress incontinence (Abstract 256). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 22nd Annual Meeting, 1‐4 Sept, Halifax, UK. 1992. [sr‐incont12071]
    1. German KA, Kynaston H, Weight S, Stephenson TP. A prospective randomized trial comparing a modified needle suspension procedure with the vagina/obturator shelf procedure for genuine stress incontinence. British Journal of Urology 1994;74(2):188‐90. [sr‐incont2104] - PubMed
Gilja 1998 {published data only}
    1. Gilja I, Puskar D, Mazuran B, Radej M. Comparative analysis of bladder neck suspension using Raz, Burch and transvaginal Burch procedures. A 3‐year randomized prospective study. European Urology 1998;33:298‐302. [sr‐incont5872] - PubMed
Halaska 2001 {published data only}
    1. Halaska M, Kolbl H, Petri E, Danes L, Voigt R, Otcenasek M, et al. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized study comparing Burch colposuspension and tension‐free vaginal tape ‐ urodynamic and sexuological aspects (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2001;20(4):421‐2. [sr‐incont12128]
Han 2001 {published data only}
    1. Han WHC. Burch colposuspension or tension‐free vaginal tape for female stress urinary incontinence? (Abstract). International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 2001;12(Suppl 3):S23. [sr‐incont12580]
Henriksson 1978 {published data only}
    1. Henriksson L, Asmussen M, Löfgren O, Ulmsten U. A urodynamic comparison between abdominal urethrocystopexy and vaginal sling plasty in female stress incontinence. Urologia Internationalis 1978;33:111‐6. [sr‐incont5152]
    1. Henriksson L, Ulmsten U. A urodynamic evaluation of the effects of abdominal urethrocystopexy and vaginal sling urethroplasty in women with stress incontinence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1978;131(1):77‐82. [sr‐incont2670] - PubMed
Holmes 1985 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Holmes D, Stanton S, Chamberlain GVP. Randomised trial to compare the colposuspension with the anterior repair in the management of genuine stress incontinence. Personal communication 1985. [sr‐incont9859]
    1. Stanton SL, Chamberlain G, Holmes DM. The anterior repair or colposuspension for the cure of stress incontinence due to urethral sphincter incompetence. A randomised study (Abstract). Proceedings of the 24th British Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1986:156. [sr‐incont8016]
    1. Stanton SL, Chamberlain GVP, Holmes DM. Randomised study of the anterior repair and colposuspension operation in the control of genuine stress incontinence (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS),15th Annual Meeting, 1985 Sep 3‐6, London, UK. 1985:236‐7. [sr‐incont5145]
    1. Stanton SL, Chamberlain GVP, Holmes DM. The control of stress incontinence: comparison of anterior colporrhaphy and colposuspension (Abstract). Archives of Gynecology 1985;237 Suppl:401‐2. [sr‐incont9858]
Kammerer‐Doak 1999 {published data only}
    1. Kammerer‐Doak DN, Dorin MH, Rogers RG, Cousin MO. A randomized trial of Burch retropubic urethropexy and anterior colporrhaphy for stress urinary incontinence. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;93(1):75‐8. [sr‐incont8256] - PubMed
Kitchener 2006 {published data only}
    1. Dumville JC, Manca A, Kitchener HC, Smith AR, Nelson L, Torgerson DJ, COLPO Study Group. Cost‐effectiveness analysis of open colposuspension versus laparoscopic colposuspension in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2006;113(9):1014‐22. [sr‐incont22332] - PubMed
    1. Kitchener HC. A randomised trial of open versus laparoscopic colposuspension for genuine stress incontinence (MRC COLPO Trial). http://isrctn.org/ISRCTN14969683 (accessed 5 May 2015) 2000. [sr‐incont16345]
    1. Kitchener HC, Dunn G, Lawton V, Reid F, Nelson L, Smith AR, COLPO Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension‐‐results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2006;113(9):1007‐13. [sr‐incont22333] - PubMed
    1. Smith A, Kitchener H, Dunne G, Torgerson D, Lawton V, Reid F, Ali N. A prospective randomised controlled trial of open and laparoscopic colposuspension (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2005;24(5/6):422‐3. [sr‐incont20986]
Klarskov 1986 {published data only}
    1. Klarskov P, Belving D, Bischoff N, Dorph S, Gerstenberg T, Hald T, et al. Pelvic floor exercise versus surgery for female urinary stress incontinence: preliminary results (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 14th Annual Meeting, Sept, Innsbruck, Austria. 1984:159. [sr‐incont9874]
    1. Klarskov P, Belving D, Bischoff N, Dorph S, Gerstenberg T, Okholm B, et al. Pelvic floor exercise versus surgery for female urinary stress incontinence. Urologia Internationalis 1986;41(2):129‐32. [sr‐incont592] - PubMed
    1. Klarskov P, Kroyer K, Kromann B, Maegaard E. Long term results of pelvic floor training and surgery for female genuine stress incontinence (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics. 8 1989; Vol. 8, issue 4:357‐9. [sr‐incont4516]
    1. Klarskov P, Nielson KK, Kromann‐Andersen B, Maegaard E. Long term results of pelvic floor training and surgery to female genuine stress incontinence. International Urogynaecology Journal 1991;2:132‐5. [sr‐incont6655]
    1. Klarskov P, Vedel Jepsen P, Dorph S. Reliability of voiding colpocystourethrography in female urinary stress incontinence before and after treatment. Acta Radiologica 1988;29:685‐8. [sr‐incont469] - PubMed
Koelbl 2002 {published data only}
    1. Koelbl H, Halaska M, Ostermann S, Lautenschlaeger C. Burch colposuspension and TVT ‐ perioperative results of a prospective randomized trial in patients with genuine stress incontinence (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2002;21(4):327. [sr‐incont14541]
Liapis 1996 {published data only}
    1. Liapis A, Pyrgiotis E, Kontoravdis A, Louridas C, Zourlas PA. Genuine stress incontinence: prospective randomized comparison of two operative methods. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 1996;64(1):69‐72. [sr‐incont2723] - PubMed
    1. Liapis AE, Asimiadis V, Loghis CD, Pyrgiotis E, Zourlas PA. A randomized prospective study of three operative methods for genuine stress incontinence. Journal of Gynecologic Surgery 1996;12(1):7‐14. [sr‐incont4537]
Liapis 2002 {published data only}
    1. Liapis A, Bakas P, Creatsas G. Burch colposuspension and tension‐free vaginal tape in the management of stress urinary incontinence in women. European Urology 2002;41(4):469‐73. [sr‐incont14229] - PubMed
    1. Liapis A, Bakas P, Creatsas G. Comparison of open retropubic colposuspension with tension‐free vaginal tape for the treatment of genuine stress incontinence in women (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2000;19(4):385‐6. [sr‐incont9872]
Mak 2000 {published data only}
    1. Cheon WC, Mak JH, Liu JY. Prospective randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open colposuspension. Hong Kong Medical Journal 2003;9(1):10‐4. [sr‐incont15758] - PubMed
    1. Mak JHL, Cheon CW, Liu JYS, Lee TK, Tong WM, Wong THK. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open colposuspension (Abstract). Proceedings of the Asian Society for Female Urology, 2nd Scientific Meeting, 26‐27 Aug, Hong Kong. 2000:59‐61. [sr‐incont12120] - PubMed
McCrery 2005 {published data only}
    1. McCrery RJ, Thompson PK. Outcomes of urethropexy added to paravaginal defect repair: a randomized trial of Burch versus Marshall‐Marchetti‐Krantz. Journal of Pelvic Medicine & Surgery 2005;11(3):137‐43. [sr‐incont22982]
Morris 2001 {published data only}
    1. Morris AR, Reilly ETC, Hassan A, Ramsay IN, Hawthorn RJS. 5‐7 year follow‐up of a randomised trial comparing laparoscopic colposuspension (LC) and open colposuspension (OC) in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence (Abstract). International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 2001;12(Suppl 3):S6. [sr‐incont12582]
Mundy 1983 {published data only}
    1. Mundy AR. A trial comparing the Stamey bladder neck suspension procedure with colposuspension for the treatment of stress incontinence. British Journal of Urology 1983;55(6):687‐90. [sr‐incont672] - PubMed
O'Sullivan 2000 {published data only}
    1. O'Sullivan S, Avery N, Balley A, Keane D. The effect of surgery on the collagen metabolism of paraurethral tissue in women with genuine stress incontinence (Abstract O10). International Urogynaecology Journal 2000;11 Suppl 1:S5. [sr‐incont11903]
Osman 2003 {published data only}
    1. Osman T. Stress incontinence surgery for patients presenting with mixed incontinence and a normal cystometrogram. BJU International 2003;92(9):964‐8. [sr‐incont16660] - PubMed
Palma 1985 {published data only}
    1. Palma P, David S, Pinotti JA. Comparative study between the Marshall‐Marchetti‐Krantz operation and the endoscopic suspension of the bladder neck for surgical correction of stress urinary incontinence (Abstract). Archives of Gynecology 1985;237 Suppl:402. [sr‐incont9864]
    1. Palma PC, Soffiatti SA, Almeida SC, Pinotti JA. Stress urinary incontinence: a comparative study of surgical treatment by the Marshall‐Marchetti‐Krantz technique with endoscopic suspension of the bladder neck. Second report. Asia Oceania Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1988;14(1):31‐6. [sr‐incont15461] - PubMed
    1. Palma PCR, Suely A, Soffiatti D, Pinotti JA. Stress urinary incontinence: a comparative study of the surgical treatment by the Marshall‐Marchetti‐Krantz technique with endoscopic suspension of the bladder neck. Second report. Ginecologia and Obstetricia (Sociedad Peruana de Obstetricia y Ginecologia) 1986;30(2):15‐9. [sr‐incont15464]
Quadri 1985 {published data only}
    1. Colombo M, Scalambrino S, Gallazzi S, Milani R. Burch colposuspension versus anterior repair in severe genital prolapse with stress incontinence: long term follow‐up (Abstract number 174). Proceedings of the International Continence Society, 23rd Annual Meeting, 1993 Sep 8‐11, Rome, Italy. 1993:440‐2. [sr‐incont12045]
    1. Milani R, Scalambrino S, Vicandone G, Sirtori P, Spazzini D. Complementary drug therapy improving results of surgery for incontinence and prolapse into two randomized procedures: vaginal versus suprapubic operation (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 14th Annual Meeting, Sept, Innsbruck, Austria. 1984:440‐1. [sr‐incont9867]
    1. Quadri G, Scalambrino S, Boisio N, Marchesin R, Milani R. Randomized surgery for incontinence and prolapse: Retropubic colposuspension vs anterior repair (Abstract). Archives of Gynecology 1985;237 Suppl:402. [sr‐incont8019]
    1. Scalambrino S, Biosio N, Marchesin R, Quadri G, Alegri M, Milani R. Clinical and urodynamic results in a surgical trial for incontinence and prolapse (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 15th Annual Meeting, 3‐6 Sept, London, UK. 1985:484‐5. [sr‐incont9865]
Quadri 1999 {published data only}
    1. Quadri G, Magatti F, Belloni C, Barisani D, Natale N. Marshall‐Marchetti‐Krantz urethropexy and Burch colposuspension for stress urinary incontinence in women with low pressure and hypermobility of the urethra: early results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;181(1):12‐8. [sr‐incont8864] - PubMed
Sand 2000 {published data only}
    1. Culligan PJ, Goldberg RP, Sand PK. A randomized controlled trial comparing a modified Burch procedure and a suburethral sling: long‐term follow‐up. International Urogynecology Journal 2003;14(4):229‐33. [sr‐incont16706] - PubMed
    1. Culligan PJ, Winkler HA, Blackhurst DW, Sand PK. A prospective randomized study of modified Burch retropubic urethropexy and suburethral sling for genuine stress incontinence and low pressure urethra. Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 28th Annual Meeting, 1998 Sep 14‐17, Jerusalem, Israel. 1998:133. [sr‐incont5689]
    1. Goldberg RP, Culligan PJ, Koduri S, Sand PK. A prospective randomized study comparing modified Burch retropubic urethropexy and suburethral sling: long term follow‐up (Abstract). International Urogynaecology Journal 2000;11(Suppl 1):S8. [sr‐incont11904]
    1. Goldberg RP, Sand PK, Koduri S, Culligan PJ. A prospective randomized study comparing modified Burch retropubic urethropexy and suburethral sling: long term follow‐up (Abstract). International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 2001;12(Suppl 1):S6. [sr‐incont12004]
    1. Sand PK, Winkler H, Blackhurst DW, Culligan PJ. A prospective randomized study comparing modified Burch retropubic urethropexy and suburethral sling for treatment of genuine stress incontinence with low‐pressure urethra. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;182(1 Pt 1):30‐4. [sr‐incont9013] - PubMed
Sivaslioglu 2007 {published data only}
    1. Sivaslioglu AA, Caliskan E, Dolen I, Haberal A. A randomized comparison of transobturator tape and Burch colposuspension in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. International Urogynecology Journal 2007;18(9):1015‐9. [sr‐incont23854] - PubMed
Stangel‐Wojcikiewicz 2008 {published data only}
    1. Stangel‐Wojcikiewicz K. Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension compared to laparotomy for treatment urinary stress incontinence (Abstract number 121). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2008;27(7):714. [sr‐incont31857]
Su 1997 {published data only}
    1. Su TH, Wang KG, Hsu CY, Wei HJ, Hong BK. Prospective comparison of laparoscopic and traditional colposuspensions in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1997;76:576‐82. [sr‐incont5558] - PubMed
Summitt 2000 {published data only}
    1. Summitt RL, Lucente V, Karram MM, Shull BL, Bent AE. Randomized comparison of laparoscopic and transabdominal Burch urethropexy for the treatment of genuine stress incontinence (Abstract). Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;95(4):S2. [sr‐incont11862]
Tapp 1989 {published data only}
    1. Tapp AJS, Hills B, Cardozo L. Pelvic floor physiotherapy compared with the Burch colposuspension in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Proceedings of the Silver Jubilee British Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1989:65. [sr‐incont8015]
    1. Tapp AJS, Hills B, Cardozo L, Tapp AJ. Randomised study comparing pelvic floor physiotherapy with the Burch colposuspension. Neurourology and Urodynamics 1989;8:356‐7. [sr‐incont4515]
Tellez Martinez‐Fornes 2009 {published data only}
    1. Tellez Martinez‐Fornes M. A Three Year Follow‐up Prospective Open Randomized Trial of Tension‐Free Vaginal Tape and Colposuspension for Primary Urodynamic Stress Incontinence. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00782990 (accessed 5 May 2015) 2001. [sr‐incont62910]
    1. Tellez Martinez‐Fornes M, Fernandez Perez C, Fouz Lopez C, Fernandez Lucas C, Borrego Hernando J. A three year follow‐up of a prospective open randomized trial to compare tension‐free vaginal tape with Burch colposuspension for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Actas Urologicas Espanolas 2009;33(10):1088‐96. [sr‐incont39608] - PubMed
Trabuco 2014 {published data only}
    1. Trabuco E, Klingele C, Blandon R, Occhino J, McGree M, Weaver A, et al. A randomized comparison of incontinence procedures performed concomitantly with abdominal sacrocolpopexy: the Burch versus mid‐urethral sling trial (Abstract number 689). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2014;33(6):1005. [NCT00934999; sr‐incont64705]
Tuygun 2006 {published data only}
    1. Tuygun C, Bakirtas H, Eroglu M, Alisir I, Zengin K, Imamoglu A. Comparison of two different surgical approaches in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: Open and laparoscopic Burch colposuspension. Turk Uroloji Dergisi 2006;32(2):248‐53. [sr‐incont26724]
Ustun 2005 {published data only}
    1. Ustun Y, Engin‐Ustun Y, Gungor M, Tezcan S. Randomized comparison of Burch urethropexy procedures concomitant with gynecologic operations. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 2005;59(1):19‐23. [sr‐incont20187] - PubMed
Wang 2003 {published data only}
    1. Wang AC, Chen MC. Comparison of tension‐free vaginal taping versus modified Burch colposuspension on urethral obstruction: a randomized controlled trial. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2003;22(3):185‐90. [sr‐incont16021] - PubMed
    1. Wang AC, Liang CC, Lo TS, Tseng LH. Does tension‐free vaginal tape procedure really exert no tension on the urethra? ‐ A randomized controlled study using the voiding mechanism (Abstract). International Urogynecology Journal 2001;12(Suppl 3):S111. [sr‐incont15459]
Ward 2002 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Abrams P, Martin K, Bulmer P, Donovan J, Hilton P. Responsiveness of the Bristol female lower urinary tract symptoms questionnaire (BFLUTS‐Q) to surgical intervention in a randomised controlled trial (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 30th Annual Meeting, 28‐31 Aug, Tampere, Finland. 2000:A173. [sr‐incont9954]
    1. Brookes ST, Donovan JL, Wright M, Jackson S, Abrams P. A scored form of the Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms questionnaire: data from a randomized controlled trial of surgery for women with stress incontinence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191(1):73‐82. [sr‐incont19277] - PubMed
    1. Manca A, Sculpher MJ, Ward K, Hilton P. A cost‐utility analysis of tension‐free vaginal tape (TVT) versus colposuspension for primary genuine stress incontinence (unpublished material). Personal communication 2002. [sr‐incont12892]
    1. Manca A, Sculpher MJ, Ward K, Hilton P. A cost‐utility analysis of tension‐free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2003;110:255‐62. [sr‐incont14361] - PubMed
    1. Sculpher MJ, Ward KL, Hilton P. A comparison of the hospital cost of tension‐free vaginal tape and colposuspension (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 30th Annual Meeting, 28‐31 Aug, Tampere, Finland. 2000:333‐4. [sr‐incont9871]

References to studies excluded from this review

Adile 2001 {published data only}
    1. Adile B, Liguori P, Pisapia G, Alvino G, Bova C. Tension‐free vaginal tape for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. An Italian multicenter study and two year follow‐up. [Italian]. Urogynaecologia International Journal 2001;15(Suppl 1):68.
Adile 2001b {published data only}
    1. Adile B, Cucinella G, Gugliotta G, Lo BA, Grifo S, Caputo A. A prospective randomized study on Burch laparoscopy versus tension‐free vaginal tape: 2 year follow‐up. [Italian]. Urogynaecologia International Journal 2001;15(Suppl 1):121‐2.
Ankardal 2007 {published data only}
    1. Ankardal M, Jarbrink K, Milsom I, Heiwall B, Lausten‐Thomsen N, Ellstrom‐Engh M. Comparison of health care costs for open Burch colposuspension, laparoscopic colposuspension and tension‐free vaginal tape in the treatment of female urinary incontinence. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2007;26(6):761‐6. - PubMed
Baessler 1998 {published data only}
    1. Baessler K, Keller M, Draths R, Hohl MK, Schuessler B. Are there less voiding difficulties if a paravaginal repair is performed in addition to an abdominal colposuspension? ‐ Preliminary results of a randomised controlled trial (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 28th Annual Meeting, 14‐17 Sept, Jerusalem, Israel. 1998.
Barber 2002 {published data only}
    1. Barber MD, Visco AG, Wyman JF, Fantl JA, Bump RC, Continence Program for Women Research Group. Sexual function in women with urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;99(2):281‐9. [sr‐incont12932] - PubMed
Benson 1993 {published data only}
    1. Benson JT, McClellan E. The effect of vaginal dissection on the pudendal nerve. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;82(3):387‐9. - PubMed
Benson 1996a {published data only}
    1. Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. VAG vs ABD reconstructive pelvic surgery: a prospective randomised study with long term outcome evaluation (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 26th Annual Meeting, 27‐30 Aug, Athens,Greece. 1996:132.
Benson 1996b {published data only}
    1. Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long‐term outcome evaluation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;175(6):1418‐22. - PubMed
Bhatia 1985a {published data only}
    1. Bhatia NN, Bergman A. Modified Burch versus Pereyra retropubic urethropexy for stress urinary incontinence. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1985;66(2):255‐61. - PubMed
Bhatia 1985b {published data only}
    1. Bhatia NN, Bergman A. Role of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery for stress urinary incontinence (Abstract). Proceedings of the American Urogynecology Society, 6th Annual Meeting, Nov 6‐9, 1985, San Diego, California. 1985. [sr‐incont14559]
Brubaker 2002 {published data only}
    1. Bradley CS, Nygaard IE, Brown MB, Gutman RE, Kenton KS, Whitehead WE, et al. Bowel symptoms in women 1 year after sacrocolpopexy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2007;197(6):642‐8. - PubMed
    1. Brubaker L. Colpopexy and urinary reduction efforts (CARE) protocol: a protocol of the pelvic floor disorders network. ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00065845) (accessed 5 May 2015) 2002. [sr‐incont15048; sr‐incont49823]
    1. Brubaker L, Cundiff G, Fine P, Nygaard I, Richter H, Visco A, et al. A randomized trial of colpopexy and urinary reduction efforts (CARE): design and methods. Controlled Clinical Trials 2003;24(5):629‐42. [sr‐incont16703] - PubMed
    1. Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco AG, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. New England Journal of Medicine 13‐4‐2006;354(15):1557‐66. [sr‐incont21842] - PubMed
    1. Brubaker L, Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. The Colpopexy And urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) trial: two year outcomes (Abstract number 5). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2007;26(5):608. [sr‐incont23531]
Brubaker 2009 {published data only}
    1. Brubaker L, Chiang S, Zyczynski H, Norton P, Kalinoski DL, Stoddard A, et al. The impact of stress incontinence surgery on female sexual function. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2009;200(5):562.e1‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Bump 1988 {published data only}
    1. Bump RC, Copeland WE, Hurt WG, Fantl JA. Dynamic urethral pressure/profilometry pressure transmission ratio determinations in stress‐incontinent and stress‐continent subjects. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1988;159(3):749‐55. - PubMed
Bump 1995 {published data only}
    1. Bump RC, Hurt WG, Elser DM, Theofrastous JP, Fantl JA, McClish DK. Reliability of intra‐operative anatomic, endoscopic and urodynamic measurements and their correlation with post‐operative pressure transmission in women undergoing bladder neck suspension surgery. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 14 1995; Vol. 14, issue 5:490‐1.
Bump 1996 {published data only}
    1. Bump RC, Hurt WG, Theofrastous JP, Addison WA, Fantl JA, Wyman JF, et al. Randomized prospective comparison of needle colposuspension versus endopelvic fascia plication for potential stress incontinence prophylaxis in women undergoing vaginal reconstruction for stage III or IV pelvic organ prolapse. The Continence Program for Women Research Group. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;175(2):326‐35. - PubMed
Byrne 1989 {published data only}
    1. Byrne P, Condie R, Shafi M. A comparison of the Burch colposuspension and Aldridge sling operation for the treatment of stress incontinence (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), Louvain, Belgium. 1989.
Colombo 1997 {published data only}
    1. Colombo M, Maggioni A, Scalambrino S, Vitobello D, Milani R. Surgery for genitourinary prolapse and stress incontinence: a randomized trial of posterior pubourethral ligament plication and Pereyra suspension. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1997;176(2):337‐43. - PubMed
Cornish 2001 {published data only}
    1. Cornish A, Fynes M, Harmer C, Hawthorne G, Rosamillia A, Carey M, et al. The genitourinary treatment satisfaction score for continence surgery (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 31st Annual Meeting, Seoul, Korea, 18‐21 Sept 2001. 2001:Abstract 83. [sr‐incont14493]
Costantini 2007a {published data only}
    1. Costantini E, Zucchi A, Giannantoni A, Mearini L, Bini V, Porena M. Must colposuspension be associated with sacropexy to prevent postoperative urinary incontinence?. European Urology 2007;51(3):788‐94. [sr‐incont22549] - PubMed
Costantini 2007b {published data only}
    1. Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Zingaro M, Frumenzio E, Porena M. Pelvic organ prolapse repair with and without concomitant Burch colposuspension in incontinent women: a randomised controlled trial with at least 5‐year followup. Obstetrics and Gynecology International 2012;2012:Article ID 967923. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Giannantoni A, Zingaro M, Fioretti F, Zucchi A, et al. Abdominal integral pelvic reconstruction plus or minus Burch colposuspension in the treatment of severe uro‐genital prolapse associated to urinary incontinence. A RCT with a mid‐term follow‐up (Abstract number 476). 37th Annual Meeting of the International Continence Soceity (ICS), 20‐24 Aug 2007, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 2007. [sr‐incont23534]
    1. Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Giannantoni A, Zingaro M, Fioretti F, Zucchi A, et al. Abdominal integral pelvic reconstruction plus or minus Burch colposuspension in the treatment of severe uro‐genital prolapse associated to urinary incontinence. A RCT with a mid‐term follow‐up (Abstract number 476). Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the International Continence Soceity (ICS), 20‐24 Aug 2007, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 2007.
Costantini 2008 {published data only}
    1. Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Zingaro M, Zucchi A, Porena M. Burch colposuspension does not provide any additional benefit to pelvic organ prolapse repair in patients with urinary incontinence: a randomized surgical trial. Journal of Urology 2008;180(3):1007‐12. - PubMed
Costantini 2010 {published data only}
    1. Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Frumenzio E, Zingaro M, Bruno R, Salvini E, et al. Burch colposuspension and pelvic organ prolapse repair in patients with or without urinary incontinence. Results: from two randomised surgical trials (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2010;29(2S):111‐2.
Costantini 2011 {published data only}
    1. Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Zingaro M, Zucchi A, Porena M. Pelvic organ prolapse repair with and without prophylactic concomitant Burch colposuspension in continent women: a randomized, controlled trial with 8‐year followup. Journal of Urology 2011;185(6):2236‐40. - PubMed
Debodinance 1993 {published data only}
    1. Debodinance P, Querleu D. Comparison of the Bologna and Ingelman‐Sundberg procedures for stress incontinence associated with genital prolapse: prospective randomized study. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 1993;52(1):35‐40. - PubMed
Debodinance 1994 {published data only}
    1. Debodinance P, Bievre P, Parmentier D, Dubrulle R, Querleu D, Crepin G. [The "hazards" of using a Gore‐Tex sling in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence]. [French]. Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 1994;23(6):665‐70. - PubMed
Di Palumbo 2003 {published data only}
    1. Palumbo VS. Four‐corner bladder and urethral retropubic suspension versus anterior colporrhaphy in the correction of stress urinary incontinence with urethrocystocele 3‐4. Randomized clinical trial. Urogynaecologia International Journal 2003;17(2):57‐68.
el‐Toukhy 2001 {published data only}
    1. Toukhy TA, Davies AE. The efficacy of laparoscopic mesh colposuspension: results of a prospective controlled study. BJU International 2001;88(4):361‐6. - PubMed
Fischer‐Rasmussen 87 {published data only}
    1. Fischer‐Rasmussen W, Thunedborg P, Bjerregaard S. Colposuspension versus anterior colporraphy in the treatment of stress incontinence in patients with posterior bladder suspension defect (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 17th Annual Meeting, 2‐5 Sept, Bristol, UK. 1987:48‐9.
    1. Thunedborg P, Fischer‐Rasmussen W, Jensen SB. Stress urinary incontinence and posterior bladder suspension defects. Results of vaginal repair versus Burch colposuspension. Acta Obstetricia at Gynecologica Scandinavia 1990;69 (1):55‐9. - PubMed
Foote 2007 {published data only}
    1. Foote AJ, Moore KH. The cost of urogynaecological treatments: Which are more cost‐effective. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2007;47(3):240‐6. - PubMed
Goldberg 2001a {published data only}
    1. Goldberg RP, Culligan P, Koduri PK, Sand PK. The tensile strength of Cooper's ligament suturing: comparison of the transvaginal versus abdominal techniques (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 31st Annual Meeting, 18‐21 Sept, Seoul, Korea. 2001:Abstract 244. [sr‐incont14470]
Goldberg 2001b {published data only}
    1. Goldberg RP, Koduri S, Lobel RW, Culligan PJ, Tomezsko JE, Winkler HA, et al. Long‐term effects of three different anti‐incontinence procedures on the posterior compartment (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 31st Annual Meeting, Seoul, Korea, 18‐21 Sept 2001. 2001:Abstract 243. [sr‐incont14471]
Jongen 1999 {published data only}
    1. Jongen VHWM, Brouwer WK. Comparison of the modified Pereyra procedure and Burch urethropexy. Subjective results of a one to six years follow‐up survey. International Urogynaecology Journal 1997;8(1):S3. [sr‐incont9817]
    1. Jongen VHWM, Brouwer WK. Comparison of the modified Pereyra procedure using permanent suture material and Burch urthropexy. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 1999;84:7‐11. - PubMed
Lee 1997 {published data only}
    1. Lee YS, Kim JH, Seo JT. A comparison of laparoscopic versus open Burch procedure for stress urinary incontinence. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. 8 1997; Vol. 8, issue 1:S37.
Lemack 2008 {published data only}
    1. Lemack GE, Krauss S, Litman H, FitzGerald MP, Chai T, Nager C, et al. Normal preoperative urodynamic testing does not predict voiding dysfunction after Burch colposuspension versus pubovaginal sling. Journal of Urology 2008;180(5):2076‐80. - PMC - PubMed
Lemieux 1991 {published data only}
    1. Lemieux MC, Kung R, Drutz HP. Suprapubic clamping routine after anti‐incontinence surgery: a randomized prospective study comparing continuous vs intermittent clamping (Abstract). Proceedings of the American Urogynecology Society, 12th Annual Meeting, Oct 23‐26, Newport Beach, California, USA. 1991. [sr‐incont14575]
Martan 2000 {published data only}
    1. Martan A, Masata J, Halaska M, Otcenasek M. Ultrasonic assessment of a paravaginal defect before and after surgical treatment in women with the stress type incontinence. Ceska Gynekologie 2000;65(3):152‐5. [sr‐incont11017] - PubMed
Martan 2001 {published data only}
    1. Martan A, Masata J, Halaska M, Voigt R. Ultrasound imaging of the lower urinary system in women after Burch colposuspension. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2001;17(1):58‐64. - PubMed
McClure 2006 {published data only}
    1. McClure LA, Brown MB. A likelihood approach to analyzing clinical trial data when treatments favor different outcomes. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2006;27(4):340‐52. [sr‐incont22391] - PubMed
Meschia 2001 {published data only}
    1. Meschia M, Spennacchio M, Amicarelli F, Pifarotti P, Cavoretto P, Stoppelli S. A randomized prospective comparison of TVT and endopelvic fascia plication in the treatment of occult stress urinary incontinence in patients with genital prolapse: preliminary data (Abstract). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2001;20(4):423‐4.
Morley 1995 {published data only}
    1. Morley R, Cumming J, Birch BRP. Staple colpofixation: a new minimally invasive treatment for stress incontinence (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 25th Annual Meeting, 17‐20 Oct, Sydney, Australia. 1995:471.
Mundy 1982 {published data only}
    1. Mundy AR. The role of the Stamey bladder neck suspension procedure in the treatment of stress incontinence of urine (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society (ICS), 12th Annual Meeting, Leiden, Germany. 1982:137.
Obrink 1978 {published data only}
    1. Obrink A, Bunne G. The margin to incontinence after three types of operation for stress incontinence. Scandinavian Journal of Urological Nephrology 1978;12:209‐14. - PubMed
Ostrzenski 1996 {published data only}
    1. Ostrzenski A. Laparoscopic colposuspension for total vaginal prolapse. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1996;55(2):147‐52. [sr‐incont4775] - PubMed
Palomba 2001 {published data only}
    1. Palomba S, Napolitano V, Sammartino A, Spiezio SA, Vassallo M, Mandato V, et al. [Effect of estriol treatment per vaginam before Burch culposuspension]. [Italian]. Minerva Ginecologica 2001;53(2):141‐5. [sr‐incont12281] - PubMed
Pifarotti 2001 {published data only}
    1. Pifarotti P, Frigerio A, Gattei U, Ronchetti A, Stoppelli S, Meschia M. Results and urodynamic effects of Tension‐Free Vaginal Tape. [Italian]. Urogynaecologia International Journal 2001;15(Suppl 1):58‐60.
    1. Pifarotti P, Spennacchio M, Gattei U, Ronchetti A, Stoppelli S, Meschia M. A randomized prospective comparison of TVT and endopelvic fascia plication in the treatment of occult stress urinary incontinence in patients with genital prolapse: Preliminary data. Urogynaecologia International Journal 2001;15(Suppl 1):55‐7.
Quadri 2000 {published data only}
    1. Quadri G, Natale N, Spreafico C, Belloni C, Barisani D, Lahodny J. Intravesical prostaglandin E2 effectiveness in the prevention of urinary retention after transvaginal reconstruction of the pubo‐cervical fascia and short arm sling according to lahodny: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Urogynaecologia International Journal 2000;14(1):15‐24. [sr‐incont18130]
Reid 2007 {published data only}
    1. Reid FM, Smith AR, Dunn G. Which questionnaire? A psychometric evaluation of three patient‐based outcome measures used to assess surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2007;26(1):123‐8. [sr‐incont22577] - PubMed
Richter 2007 {published data only}
    1. Richter HE, Diokno AC, Kenton K, Norton P, Albo M, Kraus S, et al. Predictors of treatment failure 24 months after surgery for stress urinary incontinence (Abstract number 5 Oral). Journal of Pelvic Medicine & Surgery 2007;13(5):227‐8.
Richter 2008a {published data only}
    1. Richter H, Goode P, Brubaker L, Zyczynski H, Stoddard A, Dandreo K, et al. Two‐year outcomes after surgery for stress urinary incontinence in older versus younger women (Abstract number 95). Neurourology and Urodynamics 2008;27(7):682‐3. - PMC - PubMed
Richter 2008b {published data only}
    1. Richter HE, Goode PS, Brubaker L, Zyczynski H, Stoddard AM, Dandreo KJ, et al. Two‐year outcomes after surgery for stress urinary incontinence in older compared with younger women. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;112(3):621‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Roca 1994 {published data only}
    1. Roca Edreira A, Gutierrez Banos JL, Martin Garcia B, Hernandez Rodriguez R, Portillo Martin JA, Correas Gomez MA, et al. [Stress urinary incontinence. Comparative study of suprapubic and vaginal surgical techniques]. [Spanish]. Archivos Espanoles de Urologia 1994;47(7):711‐4. - PubMed
Rogers 2006 {published data only}
    1. Rogers RG, Kammerer‐Doak D, Darrow A, Murray K, Qualls C, Olsen A, et al. Does sexual function change after surgery for stress urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse? A multicenter prospective study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006;195(5):e1‐4. - PubMed
Salam 2004 {published data only}
    1. Salam TA. Laproscopic versus conventional surgical treatment of genuine urinary stress incontinence (Abstract number 4). Progres en Urologie 2004;14(3 Suppl 3):6.
Salinas 1994 {published data only}
    1. Salinas Casado J, Virseda Chamorro M, Ramirez Fernandez JC, Rapariz Gonzalez M, Esteban Fuertes M, Resel Estevez L. [Comparative results of different types of urethropexy in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women]. [Spanish]. Archivos Espanoles de Urologia 1994;47(8):761‐8. - PubMed
Salinas 1995 {published data only}
    1. Salinas Casado J, Virseda Chamorro M, Ramirez Fernandez JC, Rapariz Gonzalez M, Esteban Fuertes M, Samblas Garcia R, et al. [Effects of urethropexy on urination. A price to pay?]. [Spanish]. Archivos Espanoles de Urologia 1995;48(7):709‐16. - PubMed
Schostak 2001 {published data only}
    1. Schostak M, Gottfried HW, Heicappell R, Muller M, Sauter T, Steiner U, et al. Minimally invasive bone anchoring for female stress incontinence: a treatment with moderate results (Abstract). European Urology 2001;39(Suppl 5):3. [16374]
Stanton 1979 {published data only}
    1. Stanton SL, Cardozo LD. A comparison of vaginal and suprapubic surgery in the correction of incontinence due to urethral sphincter incompetence. British Journal of Urology 1979;51:497‐9. - PubMed
Subak 2008b {published data only}
    1. Subak LL, Brubaker L, Chai TC, Creasman JM, Diokno AC, Goode PS, et al. High costs of urinary incontinence among women electing surgery to treat stress incontinence. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;111(4):899‐907. - PMC - PubMed
Surkont 2007 {published data only}
    1. Surkont G, Wlazlak E, Dunicz‐Sokolowska A, Suzin J. [The efficacy of SUI treatment with Burch colposuspension evaluated with use of ITT analysis] [Polish]. Ginekologia Polska 2007;78(5):378‐80. - PubMed
Tincello 2009 {published data only}
    1. Tincello D. Colposuspension or tension free vaginal tape with anterior repair for urinary incontinence and prolapse: a pilot study CARPET 1. ISRCTN (http://isrctn.org/ISRCTN34759911) 2006. [sr‐incont62311] - PubMed
    1. Tincello DG, Kenyon S, Slack M, Toozs‐Hobson P, Mayne C, Jones D, et al. Colposuspension or TVT with anterior repair for urinary incontinence and prolapse: results of and lessons from a pilot randomised patient‐preference study (CARPET 1). BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009;116(13):1809‐14. [sr‐incont34323] - PubMed
    1. Tincello DG, Mayne CJ, Toozs‐Hobson P, Slack M. Randomised controlled trial of colposuspension versus anterior repair plus TVT for urodynamic stress incontinence with anterior vaginal prolapse: proposal (Abstract). Proceedings of the International Continence Society, 11th Annual Scientific Meeting (ICS), 18‐19 Mar, Bournemouth, United Kingdom. 2004:46. [sr‐incont17170]
Virseda Chamorro 1995 {published data only}
    1. Virseda Chamorro M, Salinas Casado J, Ramirez Fernandez JC, Rapariz Gonzalez M, Esteban Fuertes M, Nacarino Corbacho L, et al. [Impact of bladder irritative symptoms and detrusor instability on the outcome of urethropexy]. [Spanish]. Archivos Espanoles de Urologia 1995;48(6):595‐601. - PubMed
Walter 1982 {published data only}
    1. Walter S, Olesen KP, Hald T, Jensen HK, Pedersen PH. Urodynamic evaluation after vaginal repair and colposuspension. British Journal of Urology 1982;54(4):377‐80. - PubMed
Zhu 1998 {published data only}
    1. Zhu L, Lang J, Liu Z. Comparison of different surgical procedures for urinary stress incontinence. Chung‐Hua i Hsueh Tsa Chih [Chinese Medical Journal] 1998;78(8):601‐3. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Helmy 2012 {published data only}
    1. Helmy H, El‐Gamal S. Three‐year continence rates, satisfaction and adverse events of Burch urethropexy and fascial sling surgery for urinary incontinence (Abstract number 589). Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the International Continence (ICS), 2012 Oct 15 to 19, Beijing, China. 2012. [sr‐incont45471]

References to ongoing studies

Boyd 1996 {published data only}
    1. Boyd K. Laparoscopic treatment for female urinary incontinence. http://isrctn.org/ISRCTN44339585 (accessed 9 June 2004) 2004. [sr‐incont17206]

Additional references

Abrams 2002
    1. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: Report from the standardisation sub‐committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2002;21:167‐78. [sr‐incont12909] - PubMed
Alhasso 2005
    1. Alhasso A, Glazener CMA, Pickard R, N'Dow JMO. Adrenergic drugs for urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001842.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Athanasopoulos 1999
    1. Athanasopoulos A, Liatsikos EN, Perimenis P, Barbalias GA. Female stress urinary incontinence: predictive factors for the operative correction (Abstract). International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. 10 1999; Vol. 10, issue Suppl 1:S140.
Bakali 2013
    1. Bakali E, Buckley BS, Hilton P, Tincello DG. Treatment of recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive synthetic suburethral tape surgery in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009407.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Birnbaum 2004
    1. Birnbaum HG, Leong SA, Oster EF, Kinchen K, Sun P. Cost of stress urinary incontinence: a claims data analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22(2):95‐105. - PubMed
Black 1996
    1. Black NA, Downs SH. The effectiveness of surgery for stress incontinence in women: a systematic review. British Journal of Urology 1996;78(4):497‐510. - PubMed
Blaivas 1988
    1. Blaivas JG, Olsson CA. Stress incontinence: classification and surgical approach. Journal of Urology 1988;139(4):727‐31. - PubMed
Burch 1961
    1. Burch JC. Urethrovaginal fixation to Cooper's ligament for correction of stress incontinence, cystocoele and prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1961;81(2):281‐90. - PubMed
Chong 2011
    1. Chong E, Khan A, Anger J. The financial burden of stress urinary incontinence among women in the United States. Current Urology Reports 2011;12(5):358‐62. - PubMed
Dean 2006
    1. Dean N, Ellis G, Herbison GP, Wilson D. Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002239.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Dumville 2006
    1. Dumville JC, Manca A, Kitchener HC, Smith AR, Nelson L, Torgerson DJ, et al. Cost‐effectiveness analysis of open colposuspension versus laparoscopic colposuspension in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2006;113(9):1014‐22. - PubMed
Fantl 1996
    1. Fantl JA, Newman DK, Colling J, DeLancey JOL, Keeys C, Loughery R, et al. Urinary incontinence in adults: acute and chronic management. Clinical practice guideline. No. 2, 1996 update. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1996 Mar. AHCPR Publication No.: 96‐0682:1‐154. [AHCPR Publication No. 96‐0682]
Ford 2015
    1. Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody JD, Ogah J. Mid‐urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006375.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Glazener 2001
    1. Glazener CMA, Cooper K. Anterior vaginal repair for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001755] - DOI - PubMed
Glazener 2014
    1. Glazener CMA, Cooper K. Bladder neck needle suspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003636.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Herzog 1990
    1. Herzog AR, Flutz NH. Prevalence and incidence of urinary incontinence in community‐dwelling populations. Journal of American Geriatric Society 1990;38:273‐81. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hunskaar 2002
    1. Hunskaar S, Burgio K, Diokno AC, Herzog AR, Hjalmas K, Lapitan MC. Epidemiology and natural history of urinary incontinence (UI). In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A editor(s). Incontinence: second international consultation on incontinence. Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: the evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence. Paris, 1‐3 July 2001. Plymouth, UK: Health Publication Ltd, 2002:165‐201.
Jarvis 1994
    1. Jarvis GJ. Surgery for genuine stress incontinence. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1994;101(5):371‐4. - PubMed
Kilonzo 2004
    1. Kilonzo M, Vale L, Stearns SC, Grant A, Cody J, Glazener CM, et al. Cost effectiveness of tension‐free vaginal tape for thesurgical management of female stress incontinence. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004;20(4):455‐63. - PubMed
Kirchin 2012
    1. Kirchin V, Page T, Keegan PE, Atiemo K, Cody JD, McClinton S. Urethral injection therapy for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003881.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Kunkle 2015
    1. Kunkle CM, Hallock JL, Hu X, Blomquist J, Thung SF, Werner EF. Cost utility analysis of urethral bulking agents versusmidurethral sling in stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 2015;21(3):154‐9. - PubMed
Laudano 2013
    1. Laudano MA, Seklehner S, Chughtai B, Lee U, Tyagi R, Kavaler E, et al. Cost‐effectiveness analysis of tension‐free vaginal tape vs burch colposuspension for female stress urinary incontinence in the USA. BJU International 2013;112(2):E151‐8. - PubMed
Leach 1997
    1. Leach GE, Dmochowski RR, Appell RA, Blaivas JG, Hadley HR, Luber KM, et al. Female Stress Urinary Incontinence Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. The American Urological Association. Journal of Urology 1997;158(3 Pt 1):875‐80. - PubMed
Liberati 2009
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009;6:e1000100. - PMC - PubMed
Lose 1998
    1. Lose G, Fantl JA, Victor A, Walter S, Wells TL. Outcome measures for research in adult women with symptoms of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Neurourology and Urodynamics 1998;17(3):255‐62. - PubMed
Mainprize 1988
    1. Mainprize TC, Drutz HP. The Marshall‐Merchetti‐Krantz procedure: a critical review. Obstetrics and Gynecology Survey 1988;43(12):724‐9. - PubMed
Manca 2003
    1. Manca A, Sculpher MJ, Ward K, Hilton P. A cost‐utility analysis of tension‐free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2003;110(3):255‐62. - PubMed
Mariappan 2005
    1. Mariappan P, Alhasso AA, Grant A, N'Dow JMO. Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) for stress urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004742.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Nambiar 2014
    1. Nambiar A, Cody JD, Jeffery ST. Single‐incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008709.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Novara 2008
    1. Novara G, Galfano A, Boscolo‐Berto R, Secco S, Cavalleri S, Ficarra V, et al. Complication rates of tension‐free midurethral slings in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing tension‐free midurethral tapes to other surgical procedures and different devices. European Urology 2008;53(2):288‐309. - PubMed
Reference Manager 2012 [Computer program]
    1. Thomson Reuters. Reference Manager Professional Edition Version 12. New York: Thomson Reuters, 2012.
Rehman 2011
    1. Rehman H, Bezerra CCB, Bruschini H, Cody JD. Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001754.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane, 2014.
Richardson 1976
    1. Richardson AC, Lyon FB, Williams NL. A new look at pelvic relaxation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1976;126:568‐73. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Schulz 2010
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332. [PUBMED: 20332509] - PMC - PubMed
Subak 2008a
    1. Subak LL, Brubaker L, Chai TC, Creasman JM, Diokno AC, Goode PS, et al. High costs of urinary incontinence among women electing surgery to treat stress incontinence. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008;111(4):899‐907. - PMC - PubMed
Wagner 1998
    1. Wagner T, Hu T. Economic costs of urinary incontinence in 1995. Urology 1998;51(3):355‐361. - PubMed
Ware 1993
    1. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF‐36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, 1993.
Wilson 1996
    1. Wilson PD, Herbison RM, Herbison GP. Obstetric practice and the prevalence of urinary incontinence three months after delivery. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1996;103(2):154‐61. - PubMed
Wu 2007
    1. Wu JM, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Myers ER. Is Burch colposuspension ever cost‐effective compared with tension‐free vaginal tape for stress incontinence?. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2007;197(1):62.e1‐5. - PubMed

Publication types