Original Article
Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy with Burch Colposuspension to Reduce Urinary Stress Incontinence
N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1557-1566April 13, 2006
- Abstract
Background
We designed this trial to assess whether the addition of standardized Burch colposuspension to abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic-organ prolapse decreases postoperative stress urinary incontinence in women without preoperative symptoms of stress incontinence.
Methods
Women who did not report symptoms of stress incontinence and who chose to undergo sacrocolpopexy to treat prolapse were randomly assigned to concomitant Burch colposuspension or to no Burch colposuspension (control) and were evaluated in a blinded fashion three months after the surgery. The primary outcomes included measures of stress incontinence (symptoms, stress testing, or treatment) and measures of urge symptoms. Enrollment was stopped after the first interim analysis because of a significantly lower frequency of stress incontinence in the group that underwent the Burch colposuspension.
Results
Of 322 women who underwent randomization, 157 were assigned to Burch colposuspension and 165 to the control group. Three months after surgery, 23.8 percent of the women in the Burch group and 44.1 percent of the controls met one or more of the criteria for stress incontinence (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the Burch group and the control group in the frequency of urge incontinence (32.7 percent vs. 38.4 percent, P=0.48). After surgery, women in the control group were more likely to report bothersome symptoms of stress incontinence than those in the Burch group who had stress incontinence (24.5 percent vs. 6.1 percent, P<0.001).
Conclusions
In women without stress incontinence who are undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy for prolapse, Burch colposuspension significantly reduced postoperative symptoms of stress incontinence without increasing other lower urinary tract symptoms.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Sacrocolpopexy and Burch Colposuspension.Figure 2
Enrollment and Disposition of Patients in the Study.Article Activity
- Article
Pelvic-organ prolapse, in which the pelvic organs (uterus, bladder, and bowel) protrude into or past the vaginal introitus, is a condition often treated with surgery.1,2 Women have an 11 percent risk of surgery for prolapse or urinary incontinence by 80 years of age, and of this 11 percent, almost one third of the women have a second surgery.3 This fact points to the need for improved treatment of pelvic-floor disorders.
Prolapse commonly coexists with lower urinary tract dysfunction, such as stress urinary incontinence.1-3 Stress incontinence occurs when increased intraabdominal pressure, such as with coughing or sneezing, forces urine to leak through the urethra. Whereas some women with prolapse have concomitant stress incontinence, others do not, in part because of the obstructive effect of the prolapsed pelvic organs, creating urethral kinking. When prolapse is treated with the use of a pessary or surgery, stress incontinence may develop. The risk of symptoms of stress incontinence after surgery ranged from 8 to 60 percent in small series.4-9
One option for patients who require surgery to correct prolapse but who do not have symptoms of stress incontinence is to perform a prophylactic continence operation at the time of prolapse repair. Other options are to perform only the prolapse repair (which in some women will result in the need for a subsequent surgery later to treat stress incontinence) or to perform preoperative testing in an attempt to predict which patients will have postoperative incontinence and selectively perform continence procedures on the basis of the test results. Uncontrolled trials suggest that performing stress-incontinence procedures at the time of the initial surgery may reduce postoperative stress incontinence.9,10 However, up to 20 percent of women who undergo these procedures have complications, including difficulty voiding, urinary urgency or urge incontinence, or urinary tract injuries.11-13 Thus, the relative benefit and harm of routinely adding a continence operation in women undergoing prolapse surgery require evaluation.
Sacrocolpopexy is an abdominal-prolapse repair that restores pelvic anatomy in most women, although data on long-term (5 to 10 years) durability are limited.14 In sacrocolpopexy, graft material is attached between the vagina and sacrum, supporting the vagina (Figure 1AFigure 1
Sacrocolpopexy and Burch Colposuspension.). Burch colposuspension (Figure 1B) is effective in treating stress incontinence, and there is evidence of its durability during 10 years of follow-up.13,15-17 Performed through the same incision as the sacrocolpopexy, the Burch colposuspension consists of suturing periurethral vaginal tissue to the iliopectineal (Cooper's) ligaments on each side to support the urethra.Paravaginal repair, in which the lateral vagina is reattached to the pelvic sidewall, can be performed with sacrocolpopexy. Although paravaginal repair alone is less effective than Burch colposuspension to treat stress incontinence,18 some surgeons combine paravaginal repair with sacrocolpopexy and Burch colposuspension with the goal of enhancing vaginal support, although efficacy data are lacking for this approach.
We designed the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) trial to evaluate whether performing Burch colposuspension at the time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy for prolapse reduces postoperative symptoms of stress incontinence in women who do not report preoperative symptoms of stress incontinence. We also evaluated the effect of adding the Burch colposuspension on other lower urinary tract symptoms.
Methods
The methods used in the trial have been reported previously.19 Women planning sacrocolpopexy for stage II, III, or IV prolapse were invited to participate if they did not have symptoms of stress incontinence. Potential participants were excluded if they were unable to undergo the Burch colposuspension on the basis of the assessment of the mobility of the urethrovesical junction. All women provided written informed consent to participate, and eligible women were enrolled between March 2002 and February 2005. Enrollment and outcomes are summarized in Figure 2Figure 2
Enrollment and Disposition of Patients in the Study..20 Prolapse was staged with the use of the pelvic-organ–prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system, a standardized quantitative method for assessment of prolapse.21 At enrollment, all women were categorized as stress continent on the basis of their responses of “never” or “rarely” to the first six questions regarding symptoms of stress incontinence of the Medical, Epidemiological, and Social Aspects of Aging (MESA) questionnaire.22 None of the women had a contraindication to Burch colposuspension in the opinion of her surgeon, and all had evidence of some loss of anterior vaginal support, implying that the urethra was not fixed behind the pubic bone.
Randomization to sacrocolpopexy with or without Burch colposuspension was performed with the use of computer-generated random numbers in blocks of various sizes, and groups were stratified according to surgeon and intention to perform paravaginal repair (done at the surgeon's discretion and disclosed before randomization). The assignment was revealed in the operating room (as information contained in sealed, opaque envelopes) after the woman was anesthetized. The women, research staff, and telephone interviewers were unaware of the treatment assignments for a minimum of three months, and blinding was intended to be maintained for two years after surgery. Follow-up examinations with the use of the POP-Q were performed by research nurses.
Preoperative urodynamics were completed in accord with the study protocol without prolapse reduction and then again with placement of the prolapsed vagina into the more normal anatomical position (prolapse reduction). Preoperative urodynamic results were withheld from the surgical team. The women completed validated questionnaires by telephone23 at baseline and again at follow-up, including the Hunskaar measure for the severity of urinary incontinence24 and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) for the assessment of pelvic symptoms and their effect on the quality of life.25
The primary outcomes were stress incontinence and urge symptoms three months after surgery. Women were characterized as having stress incontinence if any of the following were present: first, symptoms, as defined by a “yes” response to any of three questions on the PFDI stress incontinence subscale regarding leakage with coughing, sneezing, or laughing; physical exercise; and lifting or bending over; second, stress incontinence during standardized stress testing at maximal bladder capacity or 300 ml, whichever was less, in either the supine or standing position with Valsalva's maneuver or cough provocation; or third, any treatment for stress incontinence after the study surgery. We considered women to have bothersome symptoms of stress incontinence if they reported being bothered “quite a bit” or “moderately” in response to one of the three questions on stress incontinence on the PFDI. The urge end point was defined as any one of the following bothersome symptoms (defined as “moderately” or “quite a bit” according to the PFDI): urge incontinence, urgency, frequency, nocturia, or enuresis; or treatment for any of these symptoms identified after the index surgery. Stress and urge symptoms were also described with the use of the stress subscale and the irritative-voiding subscale of the PFDI, respectively. Higher scores represent increasing level of symptoms and increasingly bothersome symptoms.
Serious adverse events were defined as untoward medical occurrences that were life-threatening or fatal, required prolonged hospitalization or readmission for the index surgery, any condition that resulted in persistent or clinically significant disability, or any other important medical condition. Since surgical treatment for stress incontinence was a component of the stress-incontinence end point, it was not included among the adverse events. Serious adverse events were reviewed by a committee of three investigators (all of them independent of the clinical sites and unaware of the women's treatment assignments) to determine which events were plausibly related to the Burch intervention.
The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in the proportion of women with stress incontinence three months after sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension as compared with sacrocolpopexy without Burch colposuspension. We planned to enroll 480 women in order to identify a difference in stress incontinence between the two groups as small as 10 percent. Two interim analyses were planned, the first after 50 percent of the women had reached the three-month end point after surgery, to be performed with the use of a 0.0042 level of significance for stopping, and the second after 75 percent of the women had reached three months after surgery, to be performed with a 0.019 level of significance. The data and safety monitoring board of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network recommended stopping enrollment after the first interim analysis, when outcomes were available for 232 women. All 322 women who had undergone randomization were followed to the three-month end point.
Case-report forms completed at the clinical sites were sent to the data-coordinating center for double data entry. The two groups were compared at baseline according to age, body-mass index (defined as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters), and prolapse stage. Subsequent analyses were not adjusted for these measures, since these characteristics were similar in the two groups. Proportions were compared with the use of the Mantel–Haenszel chi-square test and adjusted for surgeon and the presence or absence of paravaginal repair. Quality-of-life measures were compared with the use of a general linear model with the same covariates (surgeon and the presence or absence of paravaginal repair). Data collection was not complete for all women.
Except for the three analyses of the stress-incontinence end point, all reported results were based on observed data without imputation of missing data. All tests performed and all reported P values were two-sided. Results are presented as percentages or as means ±SD.
Results
Of the 322 women who underwent randomization, 157 were assigned to the Burch colposuspension with abdominal sacrocolpopexy and 165 were assigned to the control group and underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy without the Burch colposuspension. Of the 322 women, 70.1 percent had previously undergone hysterectomy. There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics (Table 1Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of the 322 Women in the Study Population.).All women were eligible on screening on the basis of a response of “rarely” or “never” to six questions on stress incontinence in the MESA questionnaire. However, 19.2 percent reported stress leakage of urine preoperatively when queried by telephone interviewers using predetermined questions on stress incontinence in the PFDI questionnaire. (A similar proportion was obtained in telephone interviews with women responding to the MESA questionnaire, but the study end point was defined by the PFDI.) Baseline urinary symptoms and test results are shown in Table 2Table 2
Baseline Urinary Evaluation According to the Women's Responses to Two Questionnaires and Results of Stress Testing with and without Prolapse Reduction..Three women in the Burch group and one in the control group did not receive the assigned treatment, and for two women in the Burch group and six in the control group, plans regarding paravaginal repair were changed (Figure 2). The overall rate of concomitant hysterectomy did not differ significantly between the two groups: 29.0 percent in the Burch group as compared with 28.0 percent in the control group (P=1.00). The study assignment was revealed to study coordinators before the visit at three months in the case of five women and to the women themselves in two cases. In two cases, surgeons learned of the urodynamic results before surgery.
Three months after surgery, 23.8 percent (35 women) of the Burch group and 44.1 percent (67 women) of the control group met one or more criteria for stress incontinence (P<0.001). The stress-incontinence end point could not be determined for 10 women in the Burch group and 13 in the control group. We therefore also performed three intention-to-treat analyses: an analysis in which women for whom end-point data were not available were considered to have treatment failure, an analysis in which those for whom end-point data were not available were considered to have had a successful outcome, and an analysis in which, because of the low number of treatment failures on stress testing, all women without symptoms (i.e., those for whom results of stress testing were not available) were considered to have had a successful outcome, whereas the remaining women for whom no end-point data were available were considered to have had treatment failure. Differences between the two groups were significant when these models were used.
After adjustment for surgeon and presence or absence of concomitant paravaginal procedure, the Burch colposuspension remained protective against stress incontinence (odds ratio, 0.41; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.70). Results based on the three components of the stress incontinence measures are shown in Table 3Table 3
Urinary Evaluation at Three Months after Surgery.. “Bothersome” stress incontinence was also significantly less common in the Burch group than in the control group (6.1 percent vs. 24.5 percent, P<0.001).Regardless of the urodynamic finding of leakage during prolapse reduction, the addition of the Burch colposuspension was beneficial. Even if no leakage was detected with urodynamic prolapse reduction preoperatively, the Burch colposuspension reduced postoperative stress incontinence from 38.2 percent to 20.8 percent (P=0.007) (data not shown).
When women who reported symptoms of stress incontinence in response to the PFDI questionnaire administered at baseline were excluded, rates of postoperative stress incontinence remained significantly lower in the Burch group than in the control group (19.8 percent vs. 41.3 percent, P<0.001). In addition, rates of postoperative stress incontinence in the two groups were not significantly affected by concomitant paravaginal repair.
The percentage of women who met one or more criteria for urge outcomes at three months after surgery did not differ significantly between the two groups (32.7 percent in the Burch group vs. 38.4 percent in the control group, P=0.48). There were no significant differences between the two groups according to the PFDI subscales for irritative voiding and obstructive voiding (data not shown) or for voiding symptoms or pain and pressure with bladder filling. Urinary retention was rare, being reported by one woman in each group at three months.
As anticipated, there was a significant difference in the duration of surgery (the interval between incision and skin closure): 190±55 minutes for sacrocolpopexy plus Burch colposuspension, as compared with 170±60 minutes for sacrocolpopexy without Burch colposuspension (P=0.002). The groups also differed in estimated intraoperative blood loss (265±242 ml for sacrocolpopexy plus Burch colposuspension vs. 192±125 ml for sacrocolpopexy alone, P<0.001).
The percentage of women who had serious adverse events within three months after surgery was similar in the two groups (14.6 percent in the Burch group and 14.5 percent in the control group, P=0.79). When serious adverse events were judged to be plausibly related to the Burch surgery, the proportions were 4.5 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively (P=0.24).
The outcomes for stress incontinence and urge outcome were similar among the 231 women who completed one year of follow-up at the time of the analysis. Among these women, 24 (20.9 percent) in the Burch group, as compared with 46 (39.7 percent) in the control group, met one or more criteria for stress incontinence (P=0.02), whereas 32 (27.6 percent) of those in the Burch group and 42 (35.0 percent) of those in the control group met one or more criteria for urge outcome (P=0.37).
Discussion
Burch colposuspension at the time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy for prolapse significantly reduced the risk of postoperative symptoms of stress incontinence in women three months postoperatively. This protective effect occurred regardless of the level of preoperative symptoms or of findings on objective testing. The addition of Burch colposuspension did not increase the frequency of urinary retention, urge incontinence, urgency, urinary tract infections, or intraoperative or postoperative complications. Ongoing follow-up of these women will provide further information with respect to the long-term usefulness of adding Burch colposuspension at the time of sacrocolpopexy.
Criteria for the end point of stress incontinence included symptoms, stress testing, or treatment. Most of the women reached the stress end point on the basis of reported symptoms, rather than on testing or treatment. In the literature, rates of stress incontinence vary according to the diagnostic method or instrument used.4,26-28 We found this to be so in our study as well, but the marked difference between the two groups persisted whether we used a composite definition or validated symptom scales for stress incontinence. Furthermore, Burch colposuspension reduced postoperative stress incontinence regardless of preoperative urodynamic status.
Approximately 90 percent of the women had at least one bladder symptom preoperatively that was not related to stress incontinence. Whereas Burch colposuspension reduced postoperative stress incontinence substantially, most of the women had some other bladder symptom postoperatively; four fifths reported at least one urge type of symptom three months after surgery. This result may not be substantially different from that in women without clinically significant prolapse. Among older (mean age, 68 years), community-dwelling women who completed a survey similar to the questionnaires used in our study, 61 percent responded “yes” to at least one question with regard to urgency and 41 percent reported at least one symptom related to obstructive voiding.2 Although further analyses are under way, preoperative urodynamic testing does not seem to be of value in deciding who benefits from the addition of the Burch colposuspension, although such testing may help identify women who would do better if they underwent continence procedures other than Burch colposuspension.
Our study was designed to assess incontinence at three months postoperatively as the primary end point. However, long-term follow-up is needed to assess the durability of the observed benefits of Burch colposuspension in combination with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Our findings cannot be generalized to women undergoing prolapse surgery other than abdominal sacrocolpopexy (i.e., by the vaginal approach) or continence procedures other than Burch colposuspension (e.g., a sling, a procedure that probably works by a different mechanism, assisting sphincteric closure).
Our results show that in women undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy who do not have preoperative symptoms of stress incontinence or a fixed urethra, the addition of Burch colposuspension markedly reduces the risk of postoperative stress incontinence without increasing the risk of adverse urinary symptoms, such as urge incontinence. Further research is needed to determine whether this finding applies to other prolapse and continence procedures.
Standardized techniques for Burch colposuspension, abdominal sacrocolpopexy, and paravaginal repair are described in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org.
Supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U01 HD41249, U10 HD41268, U10 HD41248, U10 HD41250, U10 HD41261, U10 HD41263, U10 HD41269, and U10 HD41267).
Dr. Brubaker reports having received research funding from Pfizer, Q-Med, Life-Tech, and Allergan; Drs. Fine, Zyczynski, and Richter, research funding from Eli Lilly; and Dr. Cundiff, research funding from Cook OB/GYN. Drs. Brubaker and Richter report having received speaker's fees from Pfizer and Novartis; Drs. Brubaker, Richter, and Zyczynski report having served as paid consultants to Novartis; Drs. Brubaker and Richter as paid consultants to Pfizer; Dr. Cundiff reports having served as a paid consultant to CR Bard; Dr. Brubaker reports having served as a paid consultant to Astellas; and Drs. Cundiff and Fine report having served as paid consultants to Eli Lilly. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We are indebted to Dr. Robert Park, chair of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Steering Committee, for his contributions to the network.
Source Information
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill. (L.B.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore (G.W.C.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (P.F.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa, Iowa City (I.N.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham (H.E.R.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill (A.G.V.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (H.Z.); the Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (M.B.B.); and the Contraception and Reproductive Health Branch, Center for Population Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. (A.M.W.).
Other members of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network participating in the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) trial are listed in the Appendix.
Appendix
In addition to the authors, the following members of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network participated in the CARE trial: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham — K. Burgio, P. Goode, R. Varner, V. Willis; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston — P. Thompson, P. Lotze, N. Frierson; University of Iowa, Iowa City — D. Brandt, D. Haury, K. Kreder, C. Bradley; Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes, Baltimore — V. Handa, M. Sauter; Loyola University, Chicago — M. FitzGerald, K. Kenton, D. Koch, C. Ball; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor — J. Wei, J. DeLancey, N. Janz, D. Smith, P. Wren, J. Imus, B. Marchant, Y. Casher; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill — A. Connolly, M. Jannelli, M. Loomis, A. Murphy, E. Wells, W. Whitehead; University of Pittsburgh/Magee-Women's Hospitals, Pittsburgh — D. Borello-France, J. Gruss, W. Leng, P. Moalli, C. Ghetti.
- References
References
1
Brown JS ,Waetjen LE ,Subak LL ,Thom DH ,Van den Eeden S ,Vittinghoff E . Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States, 1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:712-716
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Bradley CS ,Kennedy CM ,Nygaard IE . Pelvic floor symptoms and lifestyle factors in older women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2005;14:128-136
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Olsen AL ,Smith VJ ,Bergstrom JO ,Colling JC ,Clark AL . Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:501-506
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Chaikin DC ,Groutz A ,Blaivas JG . Predicting the need for anti-incontinence surgery in continent women undergoing repair of severe urogenital prolapse. J Urol 2000;163:531-534
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Cross CA ,Cespedes RD ,McGuire EJ . Treatment results using pubovaginal slings in patients with large cystoceles and stress incontinence. J Urol 1997;158:431-434
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
FitzGerald MP ,Brubaker L . Colpocleisis and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:1241-1244
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Klutke JJ ,Ramos S . Urodynamic outcome after surgery for severe prolapse and potential stress incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1378-1381
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Meschia M ,Pifarotti P ,Spennacchio M ,Buonaguidi A ,Gattei U ,Somigliana E . A randomized comparison of tension-free vaginal tape and endopelvic fascia plication in women with genital prolapse and occult stress urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:609-613
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Gordon D ,Gold RS ,Pauzner D ,Lessing JB ,Groutz A . Combined genitourinary prolapse repair and prophylactic tension-free vaginal tape in women with severe prolapse and occult stress urinary incontinence: preliminary results. Urology 2001;58:547-550
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Lefranc JP ,Atallah D ,Camatte S ,Blondon J . Longterm followup of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse abdominal repair: a report of 85 cases. J Am Coll Surg 2002;195:352-358
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Ward KL ,Hilton P . A prospective multicenter randomized trial of tension-free vaginal tape and colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence: two-year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:324-331
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Kenton K ,Oldham L ,Brubaker L . Open Burch urethropexy has a low rate of perioperative complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:107-110
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Lapitan MC ,Cody DJ ,Grant AM . Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;3:CD002912-CD002912
Medline14
Nygaard IE ,McCreery R ,Brubaker L , et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:805-823
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Bergman A ,Elia G . Three surgical procedures for genuine stress incontinence: five-year follow-up of a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:66-71
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Langer R ,Lipshitz Y ,Halperin R ,Pansky M ,Bukovsky I ,Sherman D . Long-term (10-15 years) follow-up after Burch colposuspension for urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2001;12:323-327
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Kulseng-Hanssen S ,Berild GH . Subjective and objective incontinence 5 to 10 years after Burch colposuspension. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:100-105
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Colombo M ,Milani R ,Vitobello D ,Maggioni A . A randomized comparison of Burch colposuspension and abdominal paravaginal defect repair for female stress urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:78-84
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Brubaker L ,Cundiff G ,Fine P , et al. A randomized trial of colpopexy and urinary reduction efforts (CARE): design and methods. Control Clin Trials 2003;24:629-642
CrossRef | Medline20
Moher D ,Schulz KF ,Altman DG . The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191-1194
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Bump RC ,Mattiasson A ,Bo K , et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:10-17
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Diokno AC ,Brock BM ,Brown MB ,Herzog AR . Prevalence of urinary incontinence and other urological symptoms in the noninstitutionalized elderly. J Urol 1986;136:1022-1025
Web of Science | Medline23
Wren PA ,Janz NK ,Brubaker L , et al. Reliability of health-related quality-of-life measures 1 year after surgical procedures for pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:780-788
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Hunskaar S ,Vinsnes A . The quality of life in women with urinary incontinence as measured by the Sickness Impact Profile. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39:378-382[Erratum, J Am Geriatr Soc 1992;40:976-7.]
Web of Science | Medline25
Barber MD ,Kuchibhatla MN ,Pieper CF ,Bump RC . Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:1388-1395
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Liang CC ,Chang YL ,Chang SD ,Lo TS ,Soong YK . Pessary test to predict postoperative urinary incontinence in women undergoing hysterectomy for prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:795-800
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Richardson DA ,Bent AE ,Ostergard DR . The effect of uterovaginal prolapse on urethrovesical pressure dynamics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983;146:901-905
Web of Science | Medline28
Rosenzweig BA ,Pushkin S ,Blumenfeld D ,Bhatia NN . Prevalence of abnormal urodynamic test results in continent women with severe genitourinary prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:539-542
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (130)
Citing Articles
1
Ming-Ping Wu, Cheng-Yu Long, Kuan-Hui Huang, Chin-Chen Chu, Ching-Chung Liang, Chao-Hsiun Tang. (2012) Changing trends of surgical approaches for uterine prolapse: an 11-year population-based nationwide descriptive study. International Urogynecology Journal
CrossRef2
Elisabetta Costantini, Massimo Lazzeri, Vittorio Bini, Michele Del Zingaro, Emanuela Frumenzio, Massimo Porena. (2012) 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, 1-6
CrossRef3
Charles R. Rardin. (2011) Minimally Invasive Urogynecology. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 38:4, 639-649
CrossRef4
Christopher S. Elliott, Michael H. Hsieh, Eric R. Sokol, Craig V. Comiter, Christopher K. Payne, Bertha Chen. (2011) Robot-Assisted Versus Open Sacrocolpopexy: A Cost-Minimization Analysis. The Journal of Urology
CrossRef5
Ahmet Akin Sivaslioglu, Tolga Tuyan İlhan, Serpil Aydogmus, Mustafa Uzun, İsmail Dolen. (2011) The comparison of the anatomical and symptomatic outcomes of sacrocolpopexy and posterior intravaginal slingoplasty. International Urogynecology Journal 22:11, 1363-1368
CrossRef6
Seshadri Kasturi, Sara I. Diaz, Colleen D. McDermott, Patrick J. Woodman, Richard C. Bump, Colin L. Terry, Douglass S. Hale. (2011) De novo stress urinary incontinence after negative prolapse reduction stress testing for total vaginal mesh procedures: incidence and risk factors. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 205:5, 487.e1-487.e4
CrossRef7
C. Nadeau, N. Guilhen, X. Fritel. (2011) Pour la cure chirurgicale en un temps de l’incontinence urinaire associée au prolapsus. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité 39:10, 587-589
CrossRef8
F. Sergent, V. Equy, P. Rosier, P. Hoffmann. (2011) Cure chirurgicale des cystocèles voie basse et incontinence urinaire d’effort : pour une chirurgie en deux temps. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité 39:10, 590-593
CrossRef9
Boris Gabriel, Joseph Nassif, Sonia Barata, Arnaud Wattiez. (2011) Twenty years of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: where are we now?. International Urogynecology Journal 22:9, 1165-1169
CrossRef10
Olga Ramm, Kimberly Kenton. (2011) Robotics for Pelvic Reconstruction. Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports 6:3, 176-181
CrossRef11
John PFA Heesakkers, Mark E Vierhout. (2011) Prolapse surgery: which technique and when?. Current Opinion in Urology 21:4, 281-285
CrossRef12
Elizabeth R. Casiano, John B. Gebhart, Michaela E. McGree, Amy L. Weaver, Christopher J. Klingele, Emanuel C. Trabuco. (2011) Does concomitant prolapse repair at the time of midurethral sling affect recurrent rates of incontinence?. International Urogynecology Journal 22:7, 819-825
CrossRef13
J. L. H. Ruud Bosch, Linda Cardozo, Hashim Hashim, Paul Hilton, Matthias Oelke, Dudley Robinson. (2011) Constructing trials to show whether urodynamic studies are necessary in lower urinary tract dysfunction. Neurourology and Urodynamics 30:5, 735-740
CrossRef14
Elisabetta Costantini, Massimo Lazzeri, Vittorio Bini, Michele Del Zingaro, Alessandro Zucchi, Massimo Porena. (2011) Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair With and Without Prophylactic Concomitant Burch Colposuspension in Continent Women: A Randomized, Controlled Trial With 8-Year Followup. The Journal of Urology 185:6, 2236-2240
CrossRef15
Matthew D. Barber, Zhen Chen, Emily Lukacz, Alayne Markland, Clifford Wai, Linda Brubaker, Ingrid Nygaard, Alison Weidner, Nancy K. Janz, Cathie Spino. (2011) Further validation of the short form versions of the pelvic floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourology and Urodynamics 30:4, 541-546
CrossRef16
Onder Surgit, Ilknur Inegol Gumus. (2011) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, sacrocolpopexy and burch colposuspension performed during the same operative session via a single port. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 283:S1, 127-131
CrossRef17
Hazem Al-Mandeel, Sue Ross, Magali Robert, Jill Milne. (2011) Incidence of stress urinary incontinence following vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse in objectively continent women. Neurourology and Urodynamics 30:3, 390-394
CrossRef18
Elisabetta Costantini, Massimo Lazzeri, Alessandro Zucchi, Vittorio Bini, Luigi Mearini, Massimo Porena. (2011) Five-year outcome of uterus sparing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse repair: a single-center experience. International Urogynecology Journal 22:3, 287-292
CrossRef19
A. Reich, F. Flock, R. Kreienberg. (2011) Netzmaterialien in der operativen Urogynäkologie. Der Gynäkologe 44:3, 202-206
CrossRef20
Christopher E. Wolter, Melissa R. Kaufman, John W. Duffy, Harriette M. Scarpero, Roger R. Dmochowski. (2011) Mixed incontinence and cystocele: postoperative urge symptoms are not predicted by preoperative urodynamics. International Urogynecology Journal 22:3, 321-325
CrossRef21
Dev Mohan Gulur, Amit M. Mevcha, Marcus J. Drake. (2011) Nocturia as a manifestation of systemic disease. BJU International 107:5, 702-713
CrossRef22
Sushma Srikrishna, Dudley Robinson, Linda Cardozo. (2011) Ringing the changes in evaluation of urogenital prolapse. International Urogynecology Journal 22:2, 171-175
CrossRef23
Jasmine Tan-Kim, Shawn A. Menefee, Karl M. Luber, Charles W. Nager, Emily S. Lukacz. (2011) Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 17:1, 44-49
CrossRef24
J.-P. Lefranc, Y. Benhaim, B. Lauratet, E. Vincens, P. Leguevaque, S. Motton, A. Gesson Paute, M. Soule Tholy, J. Rimailho, J. Hoff. (2011) Tecniche di trattamento chirurgico dei prolassi genitali per via addominale. EMC - Tecniche Chirurgiche - Chirurgia Generale 11:1, 1-14
CrossRef25
Gopal H. Badlani, Mayank Agarwal. (2010) Editorial Comment. Urology 76:6, 1362-1363
CrossRef26
Rashel M. Haverkorn, Gary E. Lemack. (2010) Editorial Comment. Urology 76:6, 1361-1362
CrossRef27
Asnat Groutz, Ishai Levin, Ronen Gold, David Pauzner, Joseph B. Lessing, David Gordon. (2010) Reply. Urology 76:6, 1363
CrossRef28
Asnat Groutz, Ishai Levin, Ronen Gold, David Pauzner, Joseph B. Lessing, David Gordon. (2010) “Inside-out” Transobturator Tension-free Vaginal Tape for Management of Occult Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women Undergoing Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair. Urology 76:6, 1358-1361
CrossRef29
Linda Brubaker, Matthew D. Barber, Ingrid Nygaard, Charlie W. Nager, Edward Varner, Joseph Schaffer, Anthony Visco, Susan Meikle, Cathie Spino. (2010) Quantification of vaginal support: are continuous summary scores better than POPQ stage?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 203:5, 512.e1-512.e6
CrossRef30
Elisabetta Costantini, Massimo Lazzeri. (2010) Elephants Can Remember. European Urology 58:5, 678-679
CrossRef31
Mayank Mohan Agarwal, Gopal Badlani. (2010) Need for Standardization in Definition of Success in Clinical Trials on Stress Urinary Incontinence. Current Urology Reports 11:6, 361-363
CrossRef32
Avanti Patil, Jonathan RA Duckett. (2010) Effect of prolapse repair on voiding and bladder overactivity. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 22:5, 399-403
CrossRef33
Humphrey O. Atiemo. (2010) Should an Anti-incontinence Procedure Be Routinely Performed at the Time of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair? An Evidence-based Review. Current Urology Reports 11:5, 304-309
CrossRef34
Tiny A. Boer, Kirsten B. Kluivers, Mariella I. J. Withagen, Alfredo L. Milani, Mark E. Vierhout. (2010) Predictive factors for overactive bladder symptoms after pelvic organ prolapse surgery. International Urogynecology Journal 21:9, 1143-1149
CrossRef35
Firouz Daneshgari. (2010) Surgical Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence, Decades Learned Lessons. European Urology 58:2, 239-241
CrossRef36
Joanna M Togami, Denise Chow, J Christian Winters. (2010) To sling or not to sling at the time of anterior vaginal compartment repair. Current Opinion in Urology 20:4, 269-274
CrossRef37
Erin E. Duecy, James Q. Pulvino, Anna R. McNanley, Gunhilde M. Buchsbaum. (2010) Urodynamic Prediction of Occult Stress Urinary Incontinence Before Vaginal Surgery for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 16:4, 215-217
CrossRef38
John P. Judd, Nazema Y. Siddiqui, Jason C. Barnett, Anthony G. Visco, Laura J. Havrilesky, Jennifer M. Wu. (2010) Cost-Minimization Analysis of Robotic-Assisted, Laparoscopic, and Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 17:4, 493-499
CrossRef39
Micheline Wong, Begüm Özel. 2010. Pelvic Organ Prolapse. , 333-337.
CrossRef40
Ruben VANSPAUWEN, Elvis SEMAN, Peter DWYER. (2010) Survey of current management of prolapse in Australia and New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 50:3, 262-267
CrossRef41
Jerry L. Lowder, Elizabeth A. Frankman, Chiara Ghetti, Lara J. Burrows, Marijane A. Krohn, Pamela Moalli, Halina Zyczynski. (2010) Lower urinary tract symptoms in women with pelvic organ prolapse. International Urogynecology Journal 21:6, 665-672
CrossRef42
David Shveiky, Bela I. Kudish, Andrew I. Sokol, Robert E. Gutman, Cheryl B. Iglesia. (2010) The Effect of Voiding Mechanism on Success Rates of Midurethral Sling Procedures for Stress Urinary Incontinence. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 16:3, 164-170
CrossRef43
George A. Macones, Alison G. Cahill, David M. Stamilio, Anthony Odibo. (2010) Discussion: ‘Abdominal sacrocolpopexy and urinary incontinence’ by Elser et al. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 202:4, e1-e3
CrossRef44
Denise M. Elser, Michael D. Moen, Edward J. Stanford, Kristinell Keil, Catherine A. Matthews, Neeraj Kohli, Fleming Mattox, Janet Tomezsko. (2010) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy and urinary incontinence: surgical planning based on urodynamics. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 202:4, 375.e1-375.e5
CrossRef45
Fady M. Shawky Moiety, Hassan Mansour Hegab, Ibrahim Abdel Latif Ghanem, Walaa Mohamed Zedan, Hesham Abdel Fattah Salem. (2010) Abdominal Sacrohysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective study on 33 cases. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 281:4, 631-636
CrossRef46
Ellen Borstad, Michael Abdelnoor, Anne Cathrine Staff, Sigurd Kulseng-Hanssen. (2010) Surgical strategies for women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence. International Urogynecology Journal 21:2, 179-186
CrossRef47
Paolo Boccasanta, Marco Venturi, Maurizio Spennacchio, Arturo Buonaguidi, Angelo Airoldi, Giancarlo Roviaro. (2010) Prospective clinical and functional results of combined rectal and urogynecologic surgery in complex pelvic floor disorders. The American Journal of Surgery 199:2, 144-153
CrossRef48
T.A. de Boer, S. Salvatore, L. Cardozo, C. Chapple, C. Kelleher, P. van Kerrebroeck, M.G. Kirby, H. Koelbl, M. Espuna-Pons, I. Milsom, A. Tubaro, A. Wagg, M.E. Vierhout. (2010) Pelvic organ prolapse and overactive bladder. Neurourology and Urodynamics 29:1, 30-39
CrossRef49
J.-P. Lefranc, Y. Benhaim, B. Lauratet, E. Vincens, P. Leguevaque, S. Motton, A. Gesson Paute, M. Soule Tholy, J. Rimailho, J. Hoff. (2010) T??cnicas quir??rgicas para el tratamiento de los prolapsos genitales por v??a abdominal. EMC - Urolog??a 42:3, 1-14
CrossRef50
Isao Araki, Yaburu Haneda, Yuki Mikami, Masayuki Takeda. (2009) Incontinence and detrusor dysfunction associated with pelvic organ prolapse: clinical value of preoperative urodynamic evaluation. International Urogynecology Journal 20:11, 1301-1306
CrossRef51
Firouz Daneshgari. (2009) Female Pelvic Surgery and Urologists. Urology 74:5, 965-967
CrossRef52
José M. Enríquez-Navascués, José L. Elósegui, Francisco J. Apeztegui, Carlos Placer, Nerea Borda, Martín Irazusta, José A. Múgica, Javier Murgoitio. (2009) Recto (colpo, perineo) sacropexia ventral en el tratamiento del prolapso rectal y rectogenital. Cirugía Española 86:5, 283-289
CrossRef53
Clifford Y. Wai. (2009) Surgical Treatment for Stress and Urge Urinary Incontinence. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 36:3, 509-519
CrossRef54
Matthew D. Barber, Linda Brubaker, Ingrid Nygaard, Thomas L. Wheeler, Joeseph Schaffer, Zhen Chen, Cathie Spino. (2009) Defining Success After Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Obstetrics & Gynecology 114:3, 600-609
CrossRef55
CE North, NS Ali-Ross, ARB Smith, FM Reid. (2009) A prospective study of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the management of pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 116:9, 1251-1257
CrossRef56
Matthew J. Aungst, Thaddeus D. Mamienski, Todd S. Albright, Christopher M. Zahn, John R. Fischer. (2009) Prophylactic Burch colposuspension at the time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a survey of current practice patterns. International Urogynecology Journal 20:8, 897-904
CrossRef57
Minita Patel, David O’Sullivan, Paul K. Tulikangas. (2009) Is Burch or mid-urethral sling better with abdominal sacral colpopexy?. International Urogynecology Journal 20:7, 787-790
CrossRef58
Matthew J. Aungst, Evan B. Friedman, Walter S. von Pechmann, Nicolette S. Horbach, Jeffrey A. Welgoss. (2009) De novo stress incontinence and pelvic muscle symptoms after transvaginal mesh repair. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 201:1, 73.e1-73.e7
CrossRef59
Jesús Romero Maroto, Manuel Ortiz Gorraiz, Juan José Miralles Bueno, Luís Gómez Pérez, Juan José Pacheco Bru, Luis Prieto Chaparro. (2009) Transobturator adjustable tape (TOA) permits to correct postoperatively the tension applied in stress incontinence surgery. International Urogynecology Journal 20:7, 797-805
CrossRef60
Rashel Haverkorn, Gary E. Lemack. (2009) Editorial Comment on: Medium-Term Anatomic and Function Results of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Beyond the Learning Curve. European Urology 55:6, 1467-1468
CrossRef61
Filip Claerhout, Dirk De Ridder, Jan Paul Roovers, Heidi Rommens, Federico Spelzini, Vanessa Vandenbroucke, Georges Coremans, Jan Deprest. (2009) Medium-Term Anatomic and Functional Results of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Beyond the Learning Curve. European Urology 55:6, 1459-1468
CrossRef62
Anjali M. Ganatra, François Rozet, Rafael Sanchez-Salas, Eric Barret, Marc Galiano, Xavier Cathelineau, Guy Vallancien. (2009) The Current Status of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Review. European Urology 55:5, 1089-1105
CrossRef63
J.N. Nyarangi-Dix, N. Djakovic, M. Kurosch, A. Haferkamp, M. Hohenfellner. (2009) Rekonstruktive Beckenbodenchirurgie. Der Urologe 48:5, 510-515
CrossRef64
Marie Carmela M Lapitan, June D Cody, Adrian Grant, Marie Carmela M Lapitan. 2009. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. .
CrossRef65
Alayne D. Markland, Holly E. Richter, Kimberly S. Kenton, Clifford Wai, Charles W. Nager, Stephen R. Kraus, Yan Xu, Sharon L. Tennstedt. (2009) Associated factors and the impact of fecal incontinence in women with urge urinary incontinence: from the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network's Behavior Enhances Drug Reduction of Incontinence study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 200:4, 424.e1-424.e8
CrossRef66
Brandan A. Kramer, Christopher M. Whelan, Timothy M. Powell, Bradley F. Schwartz. (2009) Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy as Management for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Journal of Endourology 23:4, 655-658
CrossRef67
Jason P. Gilleran, Philippe Zimmern. (2009) Abdominal mesh sacrocolpopexy for recurrent triple-compartment pelvic organ prolapse. BJU International 103:8, 1090-1094
CrossRef68
Shameem Abbasy, Lior Lowenstein, Thythy Pham, Elizabeth R. Mueller, Kimberly Kenton, Linda Brubaker. (2009) Urinary retention is uncommon after colpocleisis with concomitant mid-urethral sling. International Urogynecology Journal 20:2, 213-216
CrossRef69
Katie N. Ballert, Grace Y. Biggs, Anthony Isenalumhe, Nirit Rosenblum, Victor W. Nitti. (2009) Managing the Urethra at Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair: A Urodynamic Approach. The Journal of Urology 181:2, 679-684
CrossRef70
B. Fatton. (2009) Is there any evidence to advocate SUI prevention in continent women undergoing prolapse repair? An overview. International Urogynecology Journal 20:2, 235-245
CrossRef71
Marion Ek, Gunilla Tegerstedt, Christian Falconer, Anders Kjaeldgaard, Masoumeh Rezapour, Martin Rudnicki, Daniel Altman. (2009) Urodynamic assessment of anterior vaginal wall surgery: A randomized comparison between colporraphy and transvaginal mesh. Neurourology and Urodynamicsn/a-n/a
CrossRef72
Thaddeus D. Mamienski, John R. Fischer, Alan Gehrich, Christopher M. Zahn. (2009) Symptomatic stress urinary incontinence not demonstrated clinically: survey of practice patterns. International Urogynecology Journal 20:1, 39-44
CrossRef73
Catherine S. Bradley, Kimberly S. Kenton, Holly E. Richter, Xin Gao, Halina M. Zyczynski, Anne M. Weber, Ingrid E. Nygaard. (2008) Obesity and outcomes after sacrocolpopexy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199:6, 690.e1-690.e8
CrossRef74
Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Edward Varner, Anthony G. Visco, Halina M. Zyczynski, Charles W. Nager, Peggy A. Norton, Joseph Schaffer, Morton B. Brown, Linda Brubaker. (2008) Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199:6, 688.e1-688.e5
CrossRef75
R. Oliver, O. Odutola, A. Coker. (2008) Functional outcomes of posterior intravaginal slingplasty: report on its impact on urinary, bowel and psychosexual function. Gynecological Surgery 5:4, 275-280
CrossRef76
Vatche A. Minassian, Walter F. Stewart, Annemarie G. Hirsch. (2008) Why do stress and urge incontinence co-occur much more often than expected?. International Urogynecology Journal 19:10, 1429-1440
CrossRef77
J. Christian Winters. (2008) A Critical Appraisal of Preventive Slings and Prolapse Surgery—What's a Urologist to Do?. The Journal of Urology 180:3, 809-810
CrossRef78
Elisabetta Costantini, Massimo Lazzeri, Vittorio Bini, Michele Del Zingaro, Alessandro Zucchi, Massimo Porena. (2008) Burch Colposuspension Does Not Provide Any Additional Benefit to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in Patients With Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Surgical Trial. The Journal of Urology 180:3, 1007-1012
CrossRef79
Patricia S. Goode, Mary P. FitzGerald, Holly E. Richter, William E. Whitehead, Ingrid Nygaard, Patricia A. Wren, Halina M. Zyczynski, Geoffrey Cundiff, Shawn Menefee, Judith M. Senka, Xin Gao, Anne M. Weber. (2008) Enhancing Participation of Older Women in Surgical Trials. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 207:3, 303-311
CrossRef80
Elizabeth B. Takacs, Kathleen C. Kobashi. (2008) Minimally Invasive Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence and Vaginal Prolapse. Urologic Clinics of North America 35:3, 467-476
CrossRef81
Patricia A. Wren, Nancy K. Janz, Mary P. FitzGerald, Matthew D. Barber, Kathryn L. Burgio, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Ingrid E. Nygaard, Halina M. Zyczynski, Xin Gao. (2008) Optimism in Women Undergoing Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 207:2, 240-245
CrossRef82
Elizabeth Mueller, John Wei, Ingrid Nygaard, Linda Brubaker, Ed Varner, Anthony Visco, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Anne M. Weber, Chiara Ghetti, Karl Kreder, . (2008) The correlation of voiding variables between non-instrumented uroflowmetery and pressure-flow studies in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourology and Urodynamics 27:6, 515-521
CrossRef83
Lior Lowenstein, Cedric Olivera, Heidi Harvie, Joseph Schaffer, Stephen Young. (2008) The Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network (FPRN). International Urogynecology Journal 19:7, 895-897
CrossRef84
Linda Brubaker, Ingrid Nygaard, Holly E. Richter, Anthony Visco, Anne M. Weber, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Paul Fine, Chiara Ghetti, Morton B. Brown. (2008) Two-Year Outcomes After Sacrocolpopexy With and Without Burch to Prevent Stress Urinary Incontinence. Obstetrics & Gynecology 112:1, 49-55
CrossRef85
Anthony G. Visco, Linda Brubaker, Ingrid Nygaard, Holly E. Richter, Geoffrey Cundiff, Paul Fine, Halina Zyczynski, Morton B. Brown, Anne M. Weber, . (2008) The role of preoperative urodynamic testing in stress-continent women undergoing sacrocolpopexy: the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) randomized surgical trial. International Urogynecology Journal 19:5, 607-614
CrossRef86
Vincent Misraï, Morgan Rouprêt, Florence Cour, Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler, François Richard. (2008) De novo urinary stress incontinence after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. BJU International 101:5, 594-597
CrossRef87
H.S. Cronjé, J.A.A. de Beer. (2008) Culdocele repair in female pelvic organ prolapse. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 100:3, 262-266
CrossRef88
P. Hinoul, H. A. M. Brölmann, J. P. Roovers. (2008) Perspectives in urogynaecology: the surgical challenges ahead. Gynecological Surgery 5:1, 3-6
CrossRef89
P Hilton. (2008) Commentary: Long-term follow-up studies in pelvic floor dysfunction: the Holy Grail or a realistic aim?. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 115:2, 135-143
CrossRef90
Sender Herschorn. 2008. URODYNAMIC EVALUATION OF THE PATIENT WITH PROLAPSE. , 586-602.
CrossRef91
JE Jelovsek, MD Barber, MM Karram, MD Walters, MFR Paraiso. (2008) Randomised trial of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension versus tension-free vaginal tape: long-term follow up. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 115:2, 219-225
CrossRef92
Catherine S. Bradley, Ingrid E. Nygaard, Morton B. Brown, Robert E. Gutman, Kimberly S. Kenton, William E. Whitehead, Patricia S. Goode, Patricia A. Wren, Chiara Ghetti, Anne M. Weber. (2007) Bowel symptoms in women 1 year after sacrocolpopexy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 197:6, 642.e1-642.e8
CrossRef93
Charles R. Rardin, Vivian W. Sung, Brittany Star Hampton, Jeffrey L. Clemons, Vivian Aguilar, Eric R. Sokol. (2007) Long-term follow-up of a transvaginal Burch urethropexy for stress urinary incontinence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 197:6, 656.e1-656.e5
CrossRef94
Victoria L. Handa, Halina M. Zyczynski, Linda Brubaker, Ingrid Nygaard, Nancy K. Janz, Holly E. Richter, Patricia A. Wren, Morton B. Brown, Anne M. Weber. (2007) Sexual function before and after sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 197:6, 629.e1-629.e6
CrossRef95
Kathryn L. Burgio, Ingrid E. Nygaard, Holly E. Richter, Linda Brubaker, Robert E. Gutman, Wendy Leng, John Wei, Anne M. Weber. (2007) Bladder symptoms 1 year after abdominal sacrocolpopexy with and without Burch colposuspension in women without preoperative stress incontinence symptoms. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 197:6, 647.e1-647.e6
CrossRef96
Ingrid Nygaard, Karl Kreder, Elizabeth Mueller, Linda Brubaker, Patricia Goode, Anthony Visco, Anne M. Weber, Geoff Cundiff, John Wei. (2007) Does urethral competence affect urodynamic voiding parameters in women with prolapse?. Neurourology and Urodynamics 26:7, 1030-1035
CrossRef97
Jennifer T. Anger, Larissa V. Rodríguez, Qin Wang, Chris L. Pashos, Mark S. Litwin. (2007) The Role of Preoperative Testing on Outcomes After Sling Surgery for Stress Urinary Incontinence. The Journal of Urology 178:4, 1364-1369
CrossRef98
Jennifer T. Anger, Mark S. Litwin, Qin Wang, Chris L. Pashos, Larissa V. Rodríguez. (2007) Variations in Stress Incontinence and Prolapse Management by Surgeon Specialty. The Journal of Urology 178:4, 1411-1417
CrossRef99
E. Petri. (2007) Prolapschirurgie. Der Gynäkologe 40:9, 702-709
CrossRef100
Anthony J. Woodruff, Christopher C. Roth, J. Christian Winters. (2007) Abdominal sacral colpopexy: Surgical pearls and outcomes. Current Urology Reports 8:5, 399-404
CrossRef101
Holly E. Richter, Ingrid Nygaard, Kathryn L. Burgio, Victoria L. Handa, Mary Pat FitzGerald, Patricia Wren, Halina Zyczynski, Paul Fine, Morton B. Brown, Anne M. Weber. (2007) Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, Quality of Life and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Irritative Bladder and Obstructive Voiding Symptoms in Women Planning to Undergo Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse. The Journal of Urology 178:3, 965-969
CrossRef102
Jennifer T. Anger, Shlomo Raz, Larissa V. Rodríguez. (2007) Severe cystocele: Optimizing results. Current Urology Reports 8:5, 394-398
CrossRef103
Neena Agarwala, Nancye Hasiak, Marcia Shade. (2007) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with Gynemesh as graft material—Experience and results. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 14:5, 577-583
CrossRef104
Todd R Jenkins, CY Liu. (2007) Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 19:4, 314-318
CrossRef105
Giacomo Novara, Antonio Galfano, Silvia Secco, Vincenzo Ficarra, Walter Artibani. (2007) Prolapse surgery: an update. Current Opinion in Urology 17:4, 237-241
CrossRef106
Michael K. Flynn, R Mark Ellerkmann, W Allen Addison. (2007) Abdominal Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery 13:4, 157-170
CrossRef107
William E. Whitehead, Catherine S. Bradley, Morton B. Brown, Linda Brubaker, Robert E. Gutman, R. Edward Varner, Anthony G. Visco, Anne M. Weber, H. Zyczynski. (2007) Gastrointestinal complications following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 197:1, 78.e1-78.e7
CrossRef108
M.P. FitzGerald, N.K. Janz, P.A. Wren, J.T. Wei, A.M. Weber, C. Ghetti, G.W. Cundiff. (2007) Prolapse severity, symptoms and impact on quality of life among women planning sacrocolpopexy. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 98:1, 24-28
CrossRef109
Jim W. Ross. (2007) The use of a xenogenic barrier to prevent mesh erosion with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 14:4, 470-474
CrossRef110
SooCheen Ng, Yi-Torng Tee, Kwong-Pang Tsui, Gin-Den Chen. (2007) Is the role of Burch colposuspension fading away in this epoch for treating female urinary incontinence?. International Urogynecology Journal 18:8, 937-942
CrossRef111
Holly E. Richter, Patricia S. Goode, Kim Kenton, Morton B. Brown, Kathryn L. Burgio, Karl Kreder, Pamela Moalli, E. James Wright, Anne M. Weber, . (2007) The Effect of Age on Short-Term Outcomes After Abdominal Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 55:6, 857-863
CrossRef112
Tommaso Falcone, A Marcus Gustilo-Ashby. (2007) Current and future applications of robotic gynecologic surgery. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2:3, 305-313
CrossRef113
Kenneth C. H. Su, Martina F. Mutone, Colin L. Terry, Douglass S. Hale. (2007) Abdominovaginal sacral colpoperineopexy: patientperceptions, anatomical outcomes, and graft erosions. International Urogynecology Journal 18:5, 503-511
CrossRef114
C. Reena, A.N. Kekre, N. Kekre. (2007) Occult stress incontinence in women with pelvic organ prolapse. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 97:1, 31-34
CrossRef115
J Eric Jelovsek, Christopher Maher, Matthew D Barber. (2007) Pelvic organ prolapse. The Lancet 369:9566, 1027-1038
CrossRef116
Elisabetta Costantini, Alessandro Zucchi, Antonella Giannantoni, Luigi Mearini, Vittorio Bini, Massimo Porena. (2007) Must Colposuspension be Associated with Sacropexy to Prevent Postoperative Urinary Incontinence?. European Urology 51:3, 788-794
CrossRef117
Kaytan V. Amrute, Evan R. Eisenberg, Ardeshir R. Rastinehad, Leslie Kushner, Gopal H. Badlani. (2007) Analysis of outcomes of single polypropylene mesh in total pelvic floor reconstruction. Neurourology and Urodynamics 26:1, 53-58
CrossRef118
Brian S Yamada, Kathleen C Kobashi. (2007) Urogenital prolapse and occult stress urinary incontinence. Nature Clinical Practice Urology 4:1, 55-58
CrossRef119
Bart L.H. Bemelmans. (2007) Stress Urinary Incontinence and the Future of Urology. European Urology 51:1, 15-16
CrossRef120
J. Dell. (2007) Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy with Burch Colposuspension to Reduce Urinary Stress Incontinence. Yearbook of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health 2007, 319-320
CrossRef121
E.S. Rovner. (2007) Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy with Burch Colposuspension to Reduce Urinary Stress Incontinence. Yearbook of Urology 2007, 78-79
CrossRef122
Catherine S. Bradley, Morton B. Brown, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Patricia S. Goode, Kimberly S. Kenton, Ingrid E. Nygaard, William E. Whitehead, Patricia A. Wren, Anne M. Weber. (2006) Bowel symptoms in women planning surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 195:6, 1814-1819
CrossRef123
Franca Natale, Jennifer M Weir, Mauro Cervigni. (2006) Pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: which aspects remain controversial?. Current Opinion in Urology 16:6, 407-412
CrossRef124
Yumei Cao, Jun Zhang, Penny M. Kris-Etherton. 2006. Effects of Nutrient Supplements and Nutraceuticals on Risk for Cardiovascular Disease. , 79-146.
CrossRef125
Humphrey O. Atiemo, Sandip P. Vasavada. (2006) Evaluation and management of refractory overactive bladder. Current Urology Reports 7:5, 370-375
CrossRef126
Giacomo Novara, Antonio Galfano, Mariangela Mancini, Vincenzo Ficarra, Walter Artibani. (2006) Critical Assessment of Pelvic Floor Surgical Reconstruction Outcome. EAU-EBU Update Series 4:5, 202-213
CrossRef127
K.-P. Jünemann, H. Palmtag, C. Hampel, H. Heidler, G. Naumann, H. Kölbl, C. Horst, D. Schultz-Lampel. (2006) Harninkontinenz und Urodynamik. Der Urologe 45:S04, 106-121
CrossRef128
MICHAEL ALBO, LINDA BRUBAKER, FIROUZ DANESHGARI. (2006) Open and unresolved clinical questions in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. BJU International 98:s1, 110-116
CrossRef129
(2006) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with prophylactic Burch colposuspension. Nature Clinical Practice Urology 3:7, 348-348
CrossRef130
Rogers, Rebecca G., . (2006) The Vexing Problem of Hidden Incontinence. New England Journal of Medicine 354:15, 1627-1629
Full Text
