Original Article
Burch Colposuspension versus Fascial Sling to Reduce Urinary Stress Incontinence
N Engl J Med 2007; 356:2143-2155May 24, 2007
- Abstract
Background
Many surgical procedures are available for women with urinary stress incontinence, yet few randomized clinical trials have been conducted to provide a basis for treatment recommendations.
Methods
We performed a multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing two procedures — the pubovaginal sling, using autologous rectus fascia, and the Burch colposuspension — among women with stress incontinence. Women were eligible for the study if they had predominant symptoms associated with the condition, a positive stress test, and urethral hypermobility. The primary outcomes were success in terms of overall urinary-incontinence measures, which required a negative pad test, no urinary incontinence (as recorded in a 3-day diary), a negative cough and Valsalva stress test, no self-reported symptoms, and no retreatment for the condition, and success in terms of measures of stress incontinence specifically, which required only the latter three criteria. We also assessed postoperative urge incontinence, voiding dysfunction, and adverse events.
Results
A total of 655 women were randomly assigned to study groups: 326 to undergo the sling procedure and 329 to undergo the Burch procedure; 520 women (79%) completed the outcome assessment. At 24 months, success rates were higher for women who underwent the sling procedure than for those who underwent the Burch procedure, for both the overall category of success (47% vs. 38%, P=0.01) and the category specific to stress incontinence (66% vs. 49%, P<0.001). However, more women who underwent the sling procedure had urinary tract infections, difficulty voiding, and postoperative urge incontinence.
Conclusions
The autologous fascial sling results in a higher rate of successful treatment of stress incontinence but also greater morbidity than the Burch colposuspension. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00064662.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Burch Modified Colposuspension and Autologous Sling Procedure.Figure 2
Enrollment and Outcomes.Article Activity
- Article
Urinary incontinence affects an estimated 15 to 50% of women,1,2 resulting in a significant medical, social, and economic burden.1 In 1995 dollars, the annual direct costs of incontinence in the United States were estimated to be more than $16 billion.3 Among women with incontinence, 50 to 80% are identified as having stress incontinence,4 or involuntary leakage of urine resulting from physical exertion or sneezing and coughing.5 Although the initial treatment of stress incontinence is often nonsurgical (behavioral therapy, pelvic-floor exercises, or incontinence devices), surgical treatment is considered for patients who are bothered by persistent symptoms. An estimated 4 to 10% of women in the United States undergo surgery intended to restore continence,6 and this rate has increased steadily during the past 20 years.7,8
Many surgical procedures have been described for women with stress incontinence, yet few randomized clinical trials have been conducted to provide a basis for treatment recommendations. The fascial-sling procedure and Burch colposuspension are two well-established procedures with reported cure rates of 70 to 85% at 5 to 8 years.9,10 In the Burch modified colposuspension,11 the anterior vaginal wall is suspended (at the level of the bladder neck) with permanent sutures tied to the iliopectineal ligament (Figure 1AFigure 1
Burch Modified Colposuspension and Autologous Sling Procedure.). In the autologous sling procedure,12 a harvested strip of rectus fascia is placed transvaginally at the level of the proximal urethra. The fascial strip is secured superiorly to the rectus fascia with permanent sutures (Figure 1B). Although it has been suggested that the sling procedure may result in higher cure rates, this advantage may be offset by increased obstructive complications, such as voiding dysfunction and urge incontinence.13,14 We conducted a multicenter, randomized surgical trial, the Stress Incontinence Surgical Treatment Efficacy Trial, to compare the efficacy and safety of the sling and Burch procedures 24 months after surgery.Methods
Patients and Study Design
Women who were planning to undergo stress-incontinence surgery were invited to participate in the trial. Eligibility requirements included documented pure or predominant symptoms of stress incontinence for at least 3 months and a positive standardized urinary stress test.
Details of the study methods have been published previously.15 All study procedures were approved by the institutional review board at each participating clinical center, and written consent was obtained from all women before enrollment. Randomization was performed in the operating room after anesthesia induction with the use of a permuted-block randomization schedule with stratification according to clinical site. The patients were aware of study-group assignments postoperatively. An independent data and safety monitoring board oversaw the progress, interim results, and safety of the study.
Formal interim time-to-event analyses of the primary outcome of overall success were planned for three time points, with the use of an O'Brien–Fleming stopping boundary, and were conducted when 19%, 44%, and 76% of failures had occurred. Although the test statistic at the third analysis crossed the stopping boundary in favor of the sling procedure, the protocol did not require stopping the trial when the boundary was crossed, and the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the study continue. No adjustment was made for these analyses.
Definitions of clinical terms, urodynamic nomenclature, and methods of evaluation of patients were uniform across all sites and in accordance with recommendations from the standardization committees of the International Continence Society.5,16 Key elements of the two surgical procedures were standardized among all participating surgeons and included the use of preoperative antibiotics, skin-incision length, number and type of Burch sutures, fascial-sling length and width, and cystoscopic evaluation of the bladder. Because these procedures are frequently performed in conjunction with surgery for pelvic prolapse, abdominal and vaginal approaches for both pelvic prolapse repair and hysterectomy were permitted. However, surgeons were required to declare before randomization which concomitant procedures would be performed.
The two primary outcomes were composite measures of success in terms of overall urinary-incontinence measures and of stress-incontinence measures specifically. Overall treatment success was defined as no self-reported symptoms of urinary incontinence, an increase of less than 15 g in pad weight during a 24-hour pad test, no incontinence episodes recorded in a 3-day diary, a negative urinary stress test (no leakage noted on examination during cough and Valsalva maneuvers at a standardized bladder volume of 300 ml), and no retreatment for urinary incontinence (including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical therapies). Since the study surgeries are intended to correct symptoms of stress incontinence without necessarily improving concomitant urge incontinence and the voiding diary and pad test do not differentiate between urge-incontinence and stress-incontinence events, the definition of success specific to stress incontinence was limited to no self-reported symptoms of stress incontinence, a negative stress test, and no retreatment for stress incontinence.
Data were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by means of interview and clinical examination. Baseline measures included sociodemographic characteristics; risk factors for urinary incontinence, including a high body-mass index, a history of vaginal childbirth, and previous surgery for urinary incontinence; quality of life specific to urinary incontinence17; clinical characteristics of urinary incontinence, including current behavioral or pharmacologic therapy, self-reported urinary-incontinence symptoms on a validated questionnaire distinguishing stress leakage from urge leakage,18 quantity of urine leakage on a pad test,19 and the number of incontinence episodes as recorded in a 3-day voiding diary20; findings on physical examination, including urethral hypermobility as measured by the Q-tip test21 and pelvic-organ prolapse22; and urodynamic evaluation, including the presence of urodynamic stress incontinence and detrusor-overactivity incontinence.
The principal investigator at each site reported adverse events to the adverse-events committee, which comprised four investigators who were unaware of site-specific information. In certain cases, the descriptive details of the adverse event may have made it possible to discern the randomized surgical procedure. All adverse events were assigned a severity code according to a modified version of the classification system developed by Dindo and colleagues.23 This system, which has been validated for use among surgical patients, classifies the severity of an event into one of four levels on the basis of the clinical measures taken to treat that event.
Postoperative urge incontinence was defined as treatment of clinically diagnosed new-onset or persistent urge incontinence after the 6-week follow-up visit. Adequacy of voiding was assessed and categorized dichotomously at hospital discharge and again 6 weeks after surgery. Voiding dysfunction was defined by the need for surgical revision to facilitate bladder emptying or the use of any type of catheter after the 6-week visit.
Patient satisfaction was assessed at 24 months with the question “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the result of bladder surgery related to urine leakage?” Patients rated their overall satisfaction, choosing one of five options that ranged from “completely satisfied” to “completely dissatisfied.” Patients who answered that they were either “completely satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” were classified as being satisfied with the outcome.
Statistical Analysis
We calculated that 260 women per group would provide a power of 80% to detect a 12% difference between study groups (60% vs. 72%) with the use of a two-sided alternative hypothesis at a significance level of 5%. To allow for attrition and missed visits, we recruited a total of 655 women. Treatment success was assessed at follow-up visits every 6 months. If a treatment failed between scheduled visits, it was considered to have failed at the next visit. Data for women whose treatment was not known to have failed but who had not completed all assessments at the 24-month visit were censored at the last visit on which all failure assessments were complete.
For both outcome measures, we compared the success rates in the two groups at 24 months with the use of time-to-event methods for interval censored data.24 We used Kaplan–Meier product-limit analysis to estimate the success rates at 24 months in the two groups and compared the treatment-failure distributions in the two groups, controlling for stratification by clinical site, with the use of the log-rank test. To determine whether concomitant surgery might have had an effect on the results, we tested the interaction between treatment group and concomitant surgery with the use of the Weibull accelerated failure-time model. All analyses were carried out with SAS statistical software, version 9.2 (SAS Institute).
Results
Patients
From February 2002 to June 2004, we screened 2405 women for trial eligibility (Figure 2Figure 2
Enrollment and Outcomes.). Of these women, 556 were ineligible, 1193 declined to participate or withdrew consent, and 1 died before randomization. A total of 655 women were randomly assigned to a study procedure: 326 to undergo the sling procedure and 329 to undergo the Burch procedure. One woman did not undergo the assigned treatment (Burch procedure), and four women were found to be ineligible after randomization (one assigned to the sling procedure and three assigned to the Burch procedure). A total of 520 women (79%) — 265 in the sling group (81%) and 255 in the Burch group (78%) — either were assessed for treatment success at the 24-month visit or were deemed to have had a treatment failure before that visit.Women in the two surgical groups were similar in demographic, anthropometric, clinical, and urodynamic-study characteristics (Table 1Table 1
Selected Characteristics of the Patients.). The frequency of previous surgery for urinary incontinence was similar in the two groups (13% in the sling group and 15% in the Burch group). The rates of concomitant surgery for pelvic prolapse (including anterior and posterior vaginal repairs, apical suspension procedures, and hysterectomy) were also similar in the two groups (55% in the sling group and 48% in the Burch group). The sling and Burch groups had similar estimated blood loss during the procedure (229 ml and 238 ml, respectively) and similar operative times (136 minutes and 138 minutes, respectively).Women in the sling group had 24-month cumulative rates of success that were significantly higher than those in the Burch group, with overall success rates of 47% versus 38% (P=0.01), and rates of success specific to stress incontinence of 66% versus 49% (P<0.001) by the log-rank test of equality of distributions with adjustment for site (Figure 3Figure 3
Kaplan–Meier Curves for Success of Surgical Treatment for Urinary Incontinence at 24 Months among All Patients.). There was no clinically or statistically significant interaction effect of concomitant surgery and treatment group on either outcome (P=0.74 for overall success, and P=0.84 for success specific to stress incontinence).The rate of occurrence of each component of the composite measure of success, as a percentage of patients with complete follow-up assessments, differed according to the treatment group (Figure 4Figure 4
Proportion of Patients with Treatment Failure at 2 Years, According to Overall Composite Criteria, Composite Criteria Specific to Stress Incontinence, and Other Criteria.). These differences reflected the fact that the sling group had lower rates of reported symptoms related to stress incontinence, positive stress tests, and retreatment of stress incontinence than did the Burch group.There was no significant difference between the sling and Burch groups in the percentage of patients who had serious adverse events (13% and 10%, respectively; P=0.20) (Table 2Table 2
Adverse Events.). However, surgical procedures to reduce voiding symptoms or improve urinary retention were performed exclusively in the sling group, in which 19 patients underwent 20 such procedures. Adverse events were more common in the sling group than in the Burch group (63% vs. 47%, P<0.001), with 415 events among 206 women in the sling group, as compared with 305 events among 156 women in the Burch group. This difference was due primarily to urinary tract infections; 157 women in the sling group (48%) had 305 events and 105 women in the Burch group (32%) had 203 events. When urinary tract infections were excluded, the rates of adverse events were similar in the two groups.The distribution of time to return to normal voiding differed significantly between the two groups (P<0.001). At the time of hospital discharge, fewer patients in the sling group than in the Burch group had voiding with a residual volume of less than 100 ml (44% vs. 58%), and the difference persisted at 6 weeks (86% vs. 97%). Voiding dysfunction was more common in the sling group than in the Burch group (14% vs. 2%, P<0.001). More patients were treated for postoperative urge incontinence in the sling group than in the Burch group (87 patients [27%] vs. 65 patients [20%], P=0.04). The difference in urge incontinence was due to differences in the proportion of patients treated for persistent urge incontinence (79 patients in the sling group [24%] vs. 59 patients in the Burch group [18%]) rather than to differences in the proportion with new-onset urge incontinence (11 patients [3%] in both groups).
Treatment-satisfaction rates for the 480 subjects who answered the satisfaction question at 24 months were significantly higher in the sling group than in the Burch group (86% vs. 78%, P=0.02).
Discussion
At 24 months, the pubovaginal fascial sling had significantly higher rates of success — both overall and specific to stress incontinence — than did the Burch colposuspension in women with predominant stress incontinence. These findings were not modified by performance of concomitant surgery for pelvic-organ prolapse. In addition, the frequency of surgical retreatment for stress incontinence was greater in the Burch group than in the sling group. Success rates declined steadily over the 2-year follow-up period, which confirmed previous observations25,26 and underscored the need for long-term follow-up in these patients.
However, the higher success rates in the sling group were offset by higher rates of urinary tract infection, urge incontinence, voiding dysfunction, and the need for surgical revision to improve voiding. The increased efficacy and greater morbidity of the sling procedure confirm and quantify the results of previous systematic reviews27-29 and may explain some of the reluctance in the past to use this procedure as a primary surgical treatment for stress incontinence.14
Our large, randomized surgical trial comparing the fascial-sling procedure with the Burch procedure had a robust 24-month follow-up with the use of standardized definitions, procedures, and methods of evaluation to assess a variety of outcome measures and comprehensive postoperative morbidity. The absence of such information to date has precluded rigorous assessment of surgical outcomes for this condition.30,31 Reported success rates of surgery have varied widely.27,28 Factors contributing to this variation have included the lack of standardized outcome measures, differences in the baseline characteristics of the study populations, and the length of follow-up.32,33
Success rates that are based on reporting by patients are consistently lower than those based on physician-reported measures.34,35 Current research guidelines emphasize the importance of evaluating treatment efficacy with composite outcome measures that include both subjective and objective efficacy measures as well as an assessment of morbidity.36-38 Success rates in our trial were low, as compared with those in previous studies.9,10 This finding may be related to our use of composite outcome measures, resulting in a stricter definition of success. The substantial variation in failure rates among studies using single-component measures supports the use of composite outcome measures32 and highlights the lack of concordance among several traditional measures.
Our finding that the two procedures had similar success rates as measured by pad tests and voiding diaries may reflect the higher number of patients with symptoms of urge incontinence in the sling group, since these two measures cannot differentiate stress incontinence from urge incontinence. It is likely that we underestimated the rate of postoperative urge incontinence, since our definition was restricted to patients who received treatment for this condition. This factor may explain in part why only 3% of the patients in our trial had new-onset urge incontinence, a rate that is at the low end of the range reported by others.29,39
The higher rate of urinary tract infections reported in the sling group, as compared with the Burch group, may be related to a delayed return to adequate voiding and a prolonged need for catheterization in the sling group. Our definition of urinary tract infection did not require a positive urine culture, and it is possible that some patients received empirical antibiotic therapy for symptoms alone, leading us to overestimate the true incidence of postoperative urinary tract infection in either or both groups. For instance, the higher rate of urge incontinence identified in the sling group may have led to more false diagnoses of urinary tract infection in that group.
All the patients in our study received care in tertiary care centers, and the study population included only women with urethral hypermobility and pure or stress-predominant incontinence. Whether the results can be generalized to other groups of women is uncertain. Both the patients and the health care providers were aware of study-group assignments, and it is possible that bias affected the measurement of some outcomes.
Just over half the women underwent concomitant surgery for pelvic-organ prolapse, a proportion consistent with that in other studies.8 Although we did not find any material differences in success rates on the basis of concomitant surgery, such procedures could potentially influence the number of adverse events identified in both groups.
The sling group also had higher satisfaction rates than did the Burch group, a difference that was consistent with the success rates. However, satisfaction rates were higher in both groups than were success rates, indicating that satisfaction was influenced by factors beyond the resolution of incontinence symptoms. Further analyses are needed to assess the relationships among the satisfaction reported by patients, improvement in the quality of life, and outcome measures described here.
New surgical procedures for stress incontinence continue to be introduced into clinical practice without evaluation of their efficacy and safety in well-designed, randomized clinical trials.27,28 There has been a recent transition from the fascial sling and Burch procedure to the newer midurethral synthetic sling. A previous randomized surgical trial comparing the midurethral sling with the Burch procedure showed similar efficacy of the two procedures,32,40 although that study has been criticized for being underpowered. No randomized trials have compared the midurethral sling with the autologous fascial sling. The relative frequency with which these procedures are performed in the United States is difficult to assess because they have identical procedural codes. Rigorous comparative trials are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of these novel surgical techniques as compared with the efficacy and safety of the procedures studied in our trial.
The number of women undergoing surgical therapy for stress incontinence is increasing, and this trend is likely to continue as the population ages. Our data show that the pubovaginal fascial sling has significantly higher efficacy than the Burch abdominal colposuspension at 24 months in women with predominant stress incontinence, but such success comes at the cost of more complications. Clinicians should discuss such trade-offs when making recommendations to patients regarding the optimal procedure and should emphasize that complete resolution of incontinence symptoms after surgery is unlikely.
Supported by cooperative agreements (U01 DK58225, U01 DK58229, U01 DK58234, U01 DK58231, U01 DK60379, U01 DK60380, U01 DK60393, U01 DK60395, U01 DK60397, and U01 DK60401) with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Office of Research in Women's Health of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Albo reports receiving consulting fees from Pfizer and Astellas and grant support from Pfizer; Dr. Richter, receiving lecture fees from Pfizer, Esprit Pharmaceutical, and Indevus Pharmaceuticals and grant support from Pfizer; Dr. Brubaker, receiving consulting fees from Pfizer and Q-Med and grant support from Q-Med, Allergan, and Pfizer; Dr. Norton, receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly; Dr. Kraus, receiving consulting fees from Lilly ICOS and Pfizer, lecture fees from Novartis, Astellas, Pfizer, and Ortho-McNeil, and grant support from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline; Dr. Chai, receiving consulting fees from Astellas and Pfizer and grant support from Pfizer; Dr. Zyczynski, receiving consulting fees from Ethicon and grant support from Novartis and Johnson & Johnson; Dr. Diokno, receiving lecture fees from Astellas, Medtronic, Janssen-Cilag, and Ortho-McNeil, and grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Allergon, and Allergan, and holding a patent on a modified vaginal speculum marketed by Mentor; Dr. Tennstedt, receiving grant support from Lilly ICOS; Dr. Lloyd, receiving consulting fees from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AMS, lecture fees from Lilly ICOS, Ortho-McNeil, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and grant support from Ortho-McNeil, MediciNova, and Allergan; Dr. FitzGerald, receiving consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, lecture fees from Medtronic, and grant support from Pfizer; Dr. Lemack, receiving consulting fees from Pfizer and Allergan and lecture fees from Pfizer and Astellas and having equity interest in Pfizer; Dr. Johnson, receiving lecture fees from Johnson & Johnson; Dr. Stoddard, having equity in Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Elan, and Procter & Gamble; Dr. Menefee, receiving grant support from Boston Scientific and having equity interest in Pfizer; Dr. Varner, receiving lecture fees from Pfizer; Dr. Moalli, receiving lecture fees from Boston Scientific that were contributed to a fellowship research fund; Dr. Steers, receiving consulting fees from Dynogen, Sanofi-Aventis, Astellas, and Allergan, lecture fees from Watson, Astellas, and GlaxoSmithKline Beecham, and grant support from Pfizer and having equity interest in Abbott and Johnson & Johnson. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We thank Kathleen Cannon at the New England Research Institutes for her tireless organizational efforts on behalf of the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network, and Bette Jo Garrett and Patricia Lane at the University of California at San Diego for their editorial assistance.
Source Information
From the University of California, San Diego, San Diego (M.E.A., C.N., S.M.); the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham (H.E.R., L.K.L., R.E.V.); Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL (L.B., M.F., K.K.); the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City (P.N.); the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio (S.R.K.); the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas (P.E.Z., G.E.L.); the University of Maryland, Baltimore (T.C.C., H.W.J.); Magee Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (H.Z., W.L., P.M.); Beaumont Hospital Medical Center, Royal Oak, MI (A.C.D., L.S.); New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA (S.T., A.M.S., K.J.D.); Oakwood Hospital, Dearborn, MI (V.M.); the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD (J.W.K., L.M.N.); and the University of Virginia Health Systems, Charlottesville (W.S.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Albo at the Division of Urology, University of California, San Diego Medical Center, 200 W. Arbor Dr., San Diego, CA 92103-8897.
The members of the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network are listed in the Appendix.
Appendix
The following are members of the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network: Steering Committee: University of Virginia, Charlottesville — W. Steers (chair); William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, and Oakwood Hospital, Dearborn MI — A. Diokno, S. Khandwala; Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL — L. Brubaker, M. FitzGerald; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham — H.E. Richter, L.K. Lloyd; University of California, San Diego, San Diego — M. Albo, C. Nager; University of Maryland, Baltimore — T. Chai, H.W. Johnson; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh — H.M. Zyczynski, W. Leng; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas — P. Zimmern, G. Lemack; University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio — S. Kraus, T. Rozanski; University of Utah, Salt Lake City — P. Norton, L. Kerr; New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA — S. Tennstedt, A. Stoddard; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD — D. Chang, J.W. Kusek, L.M. Nyberg; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD — A.M. Weber. Coinvestigators: R.S. Ashford II, J. Baker, D. Borello-France, K.L. Burgio, S. Chiang, A. Dabbous, P.S. Goode, L.N. Hammontree, K. Kenton, D. Lesser, K. Luber, E. Lukacz, A. Markland, S. Menefee, P. Moalli, K. Peters, E. Sagan, J. Schaffer, A. Simsiman, L. Sirls, R. Starr, R.E. Varner. Study Coordinators: R. Bradt, K. Debes, R. Dinh, J. Gruss, L. Hall, A. Howell, K. Jesse, D.L. Kalinoski, K. Koches, B. Leemon, K. Mislanovich, S. O'Meara, J. Parent, N. Pope, C. Prather, T. Rogers, S. Sluder, M. Tulke. Biostatistical Coordinating Center: K.J. Dandreo, C.J. Leifer, S. McDermott, A. Stoddard (co-principal investigator), S. Tennstedt (principal investigator), L. Tinsley, L. Wruck, Y. Xu. Data and Safety Monitoring Board: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH — E.A. Gormley (chair); Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, United Kingdom — P. Abrams; Blue Ridge Medical Associates, Winston-Salem, NC — D. Bland; Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago — J.Q. Clemens; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis — J. Connett; University of Colorado, Aurora — W. Henderson; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor — D. Fenner; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh — S. Kelsey; Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI — D. Myers; Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore — J. Mostwin; and Mansoura Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura, Egypt — B. Wadie.
- References
References
1
Melville JL ,Katon W ,Delaney K ,Newton K . Urinary incontinence in US women: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:537-542
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Thom D . Variation in estimates of urinary incontinence prevalence in the community: effects of differences in definition, population characteristics, and study type. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998;46:473-480
Web of Science | Medline3
Wilson L ,Brown JS ,Shin GP ,Luc KO ,Subak LL . Annual direct cost of urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:398-406
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Hampel C ,Wienhold D ,Benken N ,Eggersmann C ,Thuroff JW . Definition of overactive bladder and epidemiology of urinary incontinence. Urology 1997;50:Suppl 6A:4-14
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Abrams P ,Cardozo L ,Fall M , et al. The standardisation of terminology in lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Urology 2003;61:37-49
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Thom DH ,Nygaard IE ,Calhoun EA . Urologic Diseases in America Project: urinary incontinence in women -- national trends in hospitalizations, office visits, treatment and economic impact. J Urol 2005;173:1295-1301
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Korn AP ,Learman LA . Operations for stress urinary incontinence in the United States, 1988-1992. Urology 1996;48:609-612
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Waetjen LE ,Subak LL ,Shen H , et al. Stress urinary incontinence surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:671-676
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Bezerra CA ,Bruschini H ,Cody DJ . Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;3:CD001754-CD001754
Medline10
Lapitan MC ,Cody DJ ,Grant AM . Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;3:CD002912-CD002912
Medline11
Tanagho EA . Colpocystourethropexy: the way we do it. J Urol 1976;116:751-753
Web of Science | Medline12
McGuire EJ ,Lytton B . Pubovaginal sling procedure for stress incontinence. J Urol 2002;167:1120-1123
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Chaikin DC ,Rosenthal J ,Blaivas JG . Pubovaginal fascial sling for all types of stress urinary incontinence: long-term analysis. J Urol 1998;160:1312-1316
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Ostergard DR . Primary slings for everyone with genuine stress incontinence? The argument against. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 1997;8:321-322
CrossRef | Medline15
Tennstedt S . Design of the Stress Incontinence Surgical Treatment Efficacy Trial (SISTEr). Urology 2005;66:1213-1217
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Schafer W ,Abrams P ,Liao L , et al. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:261-274
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Shumaker SA ,Wyman JF ,Uebersax JS ,McClish D ,Fantl JA . Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Qual Life Res 1994;3:291-306
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Herzog AR ,Diokno AC ,Brown MB ,Normolle DP ,Brock BM . Two-year incidence, remission, and change patterns of urinary incontinence in noninstitutionalized older adults. J Gerontol 1990;45:M67-M74
Medline19
Lose G ,Jorgensen L ,Thunedborg P . 24-Hour home pad weighing test versus 1-hour ward test in the assessment of mild stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1989;68:211-215
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Wyman JF ,Choi SC ,Harkins SW ,Wilson MS ,Fantl JA . The urinary diary in evaluation of incontinent women: a test-retest analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:812-817
Web of Science | Medline21
Shull BL, Halasaka M, Hurt G, et al. Physical examination. In: Abrams P, Saad K, Wein A, eds. Incontinence: proceedings of the 1st International Consultation on Incontinence, Monaco, June 28-July 1, 1998. Plymouth, England: Health Publication, 1998:333-49.
22
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 | Medline23
Dindo D ,Demartines N ,Clavien PA . Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
25
Kjolhede P ,Ryden G . Prognostic factors and long-term results of the Burch colposuspension: a retrospective study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994;73:642-647
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Alcalay M ,Monga A ,Stanton SL . Burch colposuspension: a 10-20 year follow up. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:740-745[Erratum, Br J Obstet Gynecol 1996;103:290.]
CrossRef | Medline27
Black NA ,Downs SH . The effectiveness of surgery for stress incontinence in women: a systematic review. Br J Urol 1996;78:497-510
CrossRef | Medline28
Leach GE ,Dmochowski RR ,Appell RA , et al. Female Stress Urinary Incontinence Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 1997;158:875-880
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline29
Jarvis GJ . Surgery for genuine stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101:371-374
CrossRef | Medline30
Norton P ,Brubaker L . Urinary incontinence in women. Lancet 2006;367:57-67
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline31
Nygaard IE ,Heit M . Stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:607-620
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline32
Hilton P . Trials of surgery for stress incontinence -- thoughts on the `Humpty Dumpty principle.' BJOG 2002;109:1081-1088
Web of Science | Medline33
Smith ARB, Daneshgari F, Dmochowski R, et al. Surgery for urinary incontinence in women. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A, eds. Incontinence. 2nd ed. Plymouth, England: Health Publication, 2005:1297-370.
34
Black N ,Griffiths J ,Pope C ,Bowling A ,Abel P . Impact of surgery for stress incontinence on morbidity: cohort study. BMJ 1997;315:1493-1498
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline35
Kelly MJ ,Knielsen K ,Bruskewitz R ,Roskamp D ,Leach GE . Symptom analysis of patients undergoing modified Pereyra bladder neck suspension for stress urinary incontinence: pre- and postoperative findings. Urology 1991;37:213-219
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline36
Blaivas JG ,Appell RA ,Fantl JA , et al. Standards of efficacy for evaluation of treatment outcomes in urinary incontinence: recommendations of the Urodynamic Society. Neurourol Urodyn 1997;16:145-147
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline37
Mattiasson A ,Djurhuus JC ,Fonda D ,Lose G ,Nordling J ,Stohrer M . Standardization of outcome studies in patients with lower urinary tract dysfunction: a report on general principles from the Standardisation Committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 1998;17:249-253
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline38
Weber AM ,Abrams P ,Brubaker L , et al. The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2001;12:178-186
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline39
Webster GD, Guralnick ML. Retropubic suspension surgery for female incontinence. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan EDJ, Wein AJ, eds. Campbell's urology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2002:1140-50.
40
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 | Medline
- Citing Articles (110)
Citing Articles
1
Matthew D. Barber, Alison C. Weidner, Andrew I. Sokol, Cindy L. Amundsen, J. Eric Jelovsek, Mickey M. Karram, Mark Ellerkmann, Charles R. Rardin, Cheryl B. Iglesia, Marc Toglia. (2012) Single-Incision Mini-Sling Compared With Tension-Free Vaginal Tape for the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence. Obstetrics & Gynecology 119:2, Part 1, 328-337
CrossRef2
Stephen R. Kraus, Gary E. Lemack, Holly E. Richter, Linda Brubaker, Toby C. Chai, Michael E. Albo, Larry T. Sirls, Wendy W. Leng, John W. Kusek, Peggy Norton, Heather J. Litman. (2011) Changes in Urodynamic Measures Two Years After Burch Colposuspension or Autologous Sling Surgery. Urology 78:6, 1263-1268
CrossRef3
Mohamed Teleb, Emad A. Salem, Mohamed Naguib, Mostafa Kamel, Usama Hasan, Abdel Rahman Elfayoumi, Hussein M. Kamel, Mahmoud El Adl. (2011) Evaluation of transvaginal slings using different materials in the management of female stress urinary incontinence. Arab Journal of Urology 9:4, 283-287
CrossRef4
William D. Steers. (2011) Remarks about Remarkable Surgical Outcomes. European Urology
CrossRef5
G. Alessandro Digesu, Alexandros Derpapas, Vik Khullar. (2011) Comment on Kirby et al.: Preoperative voiding detrusor pressures do not predict stress incontinence surgery outcomes. International Urogynecology Journal
CrossRef6
Ahmed S. El-Hefnawy. (2011) Editorial comment. Arab Journal of Urology 9:4, 287-288
CrossRef7
Stephen R. Kraus, Gary E. Lemack, Larry T. Sirls, Toby C. Chai, Linda Brubaker, Michael Albo, Wendy W. Leng, L. Keith Lloyd, Peggy Norton, Heather J. Litman. (2011) Urodynamic Changes Associated with Successful Stress Urinary Incontinence Surgery: Is a Little Tension a Good Thing?. Urology 78:6, 1257-1262
CrossRef8
Jennifer M. Wu, Mihir P. Gandhi, Aparna D. Shah, Jatin Y. Shah, Rebekah G. Fulton, Alison C. Weidner. (2011) Trends in inpatient urinary incontinence surgery in the USA, 1998–2007. International Urogynecology Journal 22:11, 1437-1443
CrossRef9
Linda Brubaker, Peggy A. Norton, Michael E. Albo, Toby C. Chai, Kimberly J. Dandreo, Keith L. Lloyd, Jerry L. Lowder, Larry T. Sirls, Gary E. Lemack, Amy M. Arisco, Yan Xu, John W. Kusek. (2011) Adverse events over two years after retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling surgery: findings from the Trial of Midurethral Slings (TOMUS) study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 205:5, 498.e1-498.e6
CrossRef10
Anna C. Kirby, Charles W. Nager, Heather J. Litman, Mary P. FitzGerald, Stephen Kraus, Peggy Norton, Larry Sirls, Leslie Rickey, Tracey Wilson, Kimberly J. Dandreo, Jonathan Shepherd, Philippe Zimmern, . (2011) Perineal surface electromyography does not typically demonstrate expected relaxation during normal voiding. Neurourology and Urodynamics 30:8, 1591-1596
CrossRef11
Anastasios Athanasopoulos, Konstantinos Gyftopoulos, Edward J. McGuire. (2011) Efficacy and Preoperative Prognostic Factors of Autologous Fascia Rectus Sling for Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence. Urology 78:5, 1034-1038
CrossRef12
Philippe E. Zimmern, Kimberly J. Dandreo, Larry Sirls, Alice Howell, Lynn Hall, Judy Gruss, Kathy Jesse, Tamara Dickinson, Caren Prather. (2011) Lessons from a patient experience survey in a randomized surgical trial of treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. International Urogynecology Journal 22:10, 1273-1278
CrossRef13
Ingrid Nygaard, Linda Brubaker, Toby C. Chai, Alayne D. Markland, Shawn A. Menefee, Larry Sirls, Gary Sutkin, Phillipe Zimmern, Amy Arisco, Liyuan Huang, Sharon Tennstedt, Anne Stoddard. (2011) Risk factors for urinary tract infection following incontinence surgery. International Urogynecology Journal 22:10, 1255-1265
CrossRef14
Charuspong Dissaranan, Michelle A. Cruz, Bruna M. Couri, Howard B. Goldman, Margot S. Damaser. (2011) Stem Cell Therapy for Incontinence: Where Are We Now? What is the Realistic Potential?. Current Urology Reports 12:5, 336-344
CrossRef15
S.C. Müller. (2011) Urogynäkologie, „overactive bladder“ und Neurourologie. Der Urologe 50:S1, 184-186
CrossRef16
Toby C. Chai. (2011) History and Future of Multi-Institutional Clinical Trials in Urinary Incontinence. Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports 6:3, 114-115
CrossRef17
, Anna C. Kirby, Charles W. Nager, Heather J. Litman, Mary P. FitzGerald, Stephen Kraus, Peggy Norton, Larry Sirls, Leslie Rickey, Tracey Wilson, Kimberly J. Dandreo, Jonathan P. Shepherd, Philippe Zimmern. (2011) Preoperative voiding detrusor pressures do not predict stress incontinence surgery outcomes. International Urogynecology Journal 22:6, 657-663
CrossRef18
Tatiana V. Sanses, Linda Brubaker, Yan Xu, Stephen R. Kraus, Jerry L. Lowder, Gary E. Lemack, Peggy Norton, Heather J. Litman, Sharon L. Tennstedt, Toby C. Chai. (2011) Preoperative hesitating urinary stream is associated with postoperative voiding dysfunction and surgical failure following Burch colposuspension or pubovaginal rectus fascial sling surgery. International Urogynecology Journal 22:6, 713-719
CrossRef19
Mohamed Abdel-Fattah, Ian Ramsay, Stewart Pringle, Chris Hardwick, Hassan Ali, David Young, Alyaa Mostafa. (2011) Evaluation of Transobturator Tension-free Vaginal Tapes in Management of Women With Recurrent Stress Urinary Incontinence. Urology 77:5, 1070-1075
CrossRef20
Emanuel C. Trabuco, Christopher J. Klingele, Amy L. Weaver, Michaela E. McGree, Deborah J. Lightner, John B. Gebhart. (2011) Preoperative and postoperative predictors of satisfaction after surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 204:5, 444.e1-444.e6
CrossRef21
Rubiao Ou, Xian-Jin Xie, Philippe E. Zimmern. (2011) Level I/II Evidence-Based Studies of Surgical Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: Patients Lost to Followup. The Journal of Urology 185:4, 1338-1343
CrossRef22
Ahmet Akin Sivaslioglu, Eylem Unlubilgin, H. Levent Keskin, Orhan Gelisen, Ismail Dolen. (2011) The management of recurrent cases after the Burch colposuspension: 7 years experience. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 283:4, 787-790
CrossRef23
Hai-Hong Jiang, Levilester B. Salcedo, Margot S. Damaser. (2011) Quantification of neurological and other contributors to continence in female rats. Brain Research 1382, 198-205
CrossRef24
Rashel M. Haverkorn, B. Jill Williams, William S. Kubricht, Alex Gomelsky. (2011) Is Obesity a Risk Factor for Failure and Complications After Surgery for Incontinence and Prolapse in Women?. The Journal of Urology 185:3, 987-992
CrossRef25
Haroon Rehman, Carlos CB Bezerra, Homero Bruschini, June D Cody, Haroon Rehman. 2011. Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. .
CrossRef26
G. Willy Davila. (2011) Nonsurgical Outpatient Therapies for the Management of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: Long-Term Effectiveness and Durability. Advances in Urology 2011, 1-14
CrossRef27
Bassem S. Wadie, Ahmed Mansour, Ahmed S. El-Hefnawy, Adel Nabeeh, Albair A. Khair. (2010) Minimum 2-year follow-up of mid-urethral slings, effect on quality of life, incontinence impact and sexual function. International Urogynecology Journal 21:12, 1485-1490
CrossRef28
Larry T. Sirls, Sharon Tennstedt, Mike Albo, Toby Chai, Kim Kenton, Liyuan Huang, Anne M. Stoddard, Amy Arisco, E. Ann Gormley. (2010) Factors Associated With Quality of Life in Women Undergoing Surgery for Stress Urinary Incontinence. The Journal of Urology 184:6, 2411-2415
CrossRef29
KL Guerrero, SJ Emery, K Wareham, S Ismail, A Watkins, MG Lucas. (2010) A randomised controlled trial comparing TVTTM, PelvicolTM and autologous fascial slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 117:12, 1493-1503
CrossRef30
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
CrossRef31
Kathryn L. Burgio, Linda Brubaker, Holly E. Richter, Clifford Y. Wai, Heather J. Litman, Diane Borello France, Shawn A. Menefee, Larry T. Sirls, Stephen R. Kraus, Harry W. Johnson, Sharon L. Tennstedt. (2010) Patient satisfaction with stress incontinence surgery. Neurourology and Urodynamics 29:8, 1403-1409
CrossRef32
Stephanie Molden, Danielle Patterson, Megan Tarr, Tatiana Sanses, Jessica Bracken, Aimee Nguyen, Heide S. Harvie, Amanda White, Sarah A. Hammil, Miles Murphy, Rebecca G. Rogers. (2010) Risk factors leading to midurethral sling revision: a multicenter case-control study. International Urogynecology Journal 21:10, 1253-1259
CrossRef33
Nygaard, Ingrid, . (2010) Idiopathic Urgency Urinary Incontinence. New England Journal of Medicine 363:12, 1156-1162
Full Text34
Stephen T Jeffery, Peter De Jong, Zeelha Abdool, Frans Van Wijk, Vincent Lucente, Miles Murphy, Stephen T Jeffery. 2010. Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. .
CrossRef35
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
CrossRef36
Rena R. Wing, Jennifer M. Creasman, Delia Smith West, Holly E. Richter, Deborah Myers, Kathryn L. Burgio, Frank Franklin, Amy A. Gorin, Eric Vittinghoff, Judith Macer, John W. Kusek, Leslee L. Subak. (2010) Improving Urinary Incontinence in Overweight and Obese Women Through Modest Weight Loss. Obstetrics & Gynecology 116:2, Part 1, 284-292
CrossRef37
Gary Sutkin, Marianna Alperin, Leslie Meyn, Harold C. Wiesenfeld, Rennique Ellison, Halina M. Zyczynski. (2010) Symptomatic urinary tract infections after surgery for prolapse and/or incontinence. International Urogynecology Journal 21:8, 955-961
CrossRef38
Giacomo Novara, Walter Artibani, Matthew D. Barber, Christopher R. Chapple, Elisabetta Costantini, Vincenzo Ficarra, Paul Hilton, Carl G. Nilsson, David Waltregny. (2010) Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Comparative Data on Colposuspensions, Pubovaginal Slings, and Midurethral Tapes in the Surgical Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence. European Urology 58:2, 218-238
CrossRef39
Salil Khandwala, Chaandini Jayachandran, David Sengstock. (2010) Experience with TVT-SECUR sling for stress urinary incontinence: a 141-case analysis. International Urogynecology Journal 21:7, 767-772
CrossRef40
Sunshine Murray, Gary E Lemack. (2010) Defining the role of urodynamics in predicting voiding dysfunction after anti-incontinence surgery: a work in progress. Current Opinion in Urology 20:4, 285-290
CrossRef41
Alexander Karl, Elie A. Akl, M. Louis Moy, Philipp Dahm. (2010) Evidence-based urology in practice: loss to follow-up. BJU International 106:1, 24-26
CrossRef42
Alexander Gomelsky, Roger R. Dmochowski. 2010. Surgical Treatment of Female Urinary Incontinence. , 186-194.
CrossRef43
Richter, Holly E., Albo, Michael E., Zyczynski, Halina M., Kenton, Kimberly, Norton, Peggy A., Sirls, Larry T., Kraus, Stephen R., Chai, Toby C., Lemack, Gary E., Dandreo, Kimberly J., Varner, R. Edward, Menefee, Shawn, Ghetti, Chiara, Brubaker, Linda, Nygaard, Ingrid, Khandwala, Salil, Rozanski, Thomas A., Johnson, Harry, Schaffer, Joseph, Stoddard, Anne M., Holley, Robert L., Nager, Charles W., Moalli, Pamela, Mueller, Elizabeth, Arisco, Amy M., Corton, Marlene, Tennstedt, Sharon, Chang, T. Debuene, Gormley, E. Ann, Litman, Heather J., . (2010) Retropubic versus Transobturator Midurethral Slings for Stress Incontinence. New England Journal of Medicine 362:22, 2066-2076
Full Text44
Rogers, Rebecca G., . (2010) What's Best in the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence?. New England Journal of Medicine 362:22, 2124-2125
Full Text45
Colin A. Walsh, Kate H. Moore. (2010) Recurrent Stress Urinary Incontinence After Synthetic Midurethral Sling Procedure. Obstetrics & Gynecology 115:6, 1296-1301
CrossRef46
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
CrossRef47
(2010) Author's Reply from Dr. Tomoe to Female urology: What method will you select?. International Journal of Urology 17:4, 392-393
CrossRef48
Holly E. Richter, Kimberly Kenton, Liyuan Huang, Ingrid Nygaard, Stephen Kraus, Emily Whitcomb, Toby C. Chai, Gary Lemack, Larry Sirls, Kimberly J. Dandreo, Anne Stoddard. (2010) The Impact of Obesity on Urinary Incontinence Symptoms, Severity, Urodynamic Characteristics and Quality of Life. The Journal of Urology 183:2, 622-628
CrossRef49
Peter C. Austin, Andrea Manca, Merrick Zwarenstein, David N. Juurlink, Matthew B. Stanbrook. (2010) A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63:2, 142-153
CrossRef50
Sophie G. Fletcher, Philippe E. Zimmern. (2010) REQUIEM FOR THE SUBURETHRAL TAPE. BJU International 105:4, 445-448
CrossRef51
Linda Brubaker, Leslie Rickey, Yan Xu, Alayne Markland, Gary Lemack, Chiara Ghetti, Margie A. Kahn, Pradeep Nagaraju, Peggy Norton, T Debuene Chang, Anne Stoddard. (2010) Symptoms of Combined Prolapse and Urinary Incontinence in Large Surgical Cohorts. Obstetrics & Gynecology 115:2, Part 1, 310-316
CrossRef52
P. Riss, S. Hinterholzer. (2010) Maintaining standards for surgery for female urinary incontinence. Maturitas 65:1, 5-10
CrossRef53
Toby C. Chai. (2010) Edward McGuire's influence in the field of stress urinary incontinence and bladder storage symptoms. Neurourology and Urodynamics 29:S1, S32-S35
CrossRef54
Jung Jun Kim, Young-Suk Lee, Kyu-Sung Lee. (2010) Randomized Comparative Study of the U- and H-Type Approaches of the TVT-Secur Procedure for the Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: One-Year Follow-Up. Korean Journal of Urology 51:4, 250
CrossRef55
Catherine E. DuBeau. 2010. Aging and the Lower Urogenital System. , 432-448.
CrossRef56
J. Christian Winters. (2009) Predicting Urge Incontinence After Anti-Incontinence Surgery—Can We Do Better?. The Journal of Urology 182:6, 2563-2564
CrossRef57
Kimberly Kenton, Holly Richter, Heather Litman, Emily Lukacz, Wendy Leng, Gary Lemack, Toby Chai, Amy Arisco, Sharon Tennstedt, William Steers. (2009) Risk Factors Associated With Urge Incontinence After Continence Surgery. The Journal of Urology 182:6, 2805-2809
CrossRef58
Jennifer T. Anger, Aviva E. Weinberg, John L. Gore, Qin Wang, Chris L. Pashos, Michael J. Leonardi, Larissa V. Rodríguez, Mark S. Litwin. (2009) Thromboembolic Complications of Sling Surgery for Stress Urinary Incontinence Among Female Medicare Beneficiaries. Urology 74:6, 1223-1226
CrossRef59
Bernard T. Haylen. (2009) Female voiding dysfunction: Prevalence and common associations. Current Urology Reports 10:6, 421-427
CrossRef60
Firouz Daneshgari. (2009) Female Pelvic Surgery and Urologists. Urology 74:5, 965-967
CrossRef61
Colleen D. McDermott, Douglass S. Hale. (2009) Abdominal, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 36:3, 585-614
CrossRef62
M. Sami Walid, Richard L. Heaton. (2009) Stepwise Multimodal Treatment of Mixed Urinary Incontinence with Voiding Problems in a Patient with Prolapse. Journal of Gynecologic Surgery 25:3, 121-127
CrossRef63
Steven M. Strasberg, David C. Linehan, William G. Hawkins. (2009) The Accordion Severity Grading System of Surgical Complications. Annals of Surgery 250:2, 177-186
CrossRef64
Marie Carmela M. Lapitan, June D. Cody, Adrian Grant. (2009) Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women: A short version cochrane review. Neurourology and Urodynamics 28:6, 472-480
CrossRef65
Gary Sutkin, Jerry L. Lowder, Kenneth J. Smith. (2009) Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent urinary tract infection during clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) for management of voiding dysfunction after prolapse and incontinence surgery: a decision analysis. International Urogynecology Journal 20:8, 933-938
CrossRef66
Jennifer T. Anger, Aviva E. Weinberg, Michael E. Albo, Ariana L. Smith, Ja-Hong Kim, Larissa V. Rodríguez, Christopher S. Saigal. (2009) Trends in Surgical Management of Stress Urinary Incontinence Among Female Medicare Beneficiaries. Urology 74:2, 283-287
CrossRef67
Pierre A. Clavien, Jeffrey Barkun, Michelle L. de Oliveira, Jean Nicolas Vauthey, Daniel Dindo, Richard D. Schulick, Eduardo de Santibañes, Juan Pekolj, Ksenija Slankamenac, Claudio Bassi, Rolf Graf, René Vonlanthen, Robert Padbury, John L. Cameron, Masatoshi Makuuchi. (2009) The Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications. Annals of Surgery 250:2, 187-196
CrossRef68
Eric S Rovner, Brett D Lebed. (2009) Stress incontinence surgery: which operation when?. Current Opinion in Urology 19:4, 362-367
CrossRef69
Maurizio Serati, Stefano Salvatore, Stefano Uccella, Walter Artibani, Giacomo Novara, Linda Cardozo, PierFrancesco Bolis. (2009) Surgical treatment for female stress urinary incontinence: what is the gold-standard procedure?. International Urogynecology Journal 20:6, 619-621
CrossRef70
Toby C. Chai, Michael E. Albo, Holly E. Richter, Peggy A. Norton, Kimberly J. Dandreo, Kimberly Kenton, Jerry L. Lowder, Anne M. Stoddard. (2009) Complications in Women Undergoing Burch Colposuspension Versus Autologous Rectus Fascial Sling for Stress Urinary Incontinence. The Journal of Urology 181:5, 2192-2197
CrossRef71
M. Goepel, S. Bross. (2009) Belastungsinkontinenz der Frau. Der Urologe 48:5, 487-490
CrossRef72
Sallie S. Oliphant, Li Wang, Clareann H. Bunker, Jerry L. Lowder. (2009) Trends in stress urinary incontinence inpatient procedures in the United States, 1979-2004. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 200:5, 521.e1-521.e6
CrossRef73
Marie Carmela M Lapitan, June D Cody, Adrian Grant, Marie Carmela M Lapitan. 2009. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. .
CrossRef74
Linda Brubaker, Anne Stoddard, Holly Richter, Philippe Zimmern, Pamela Moalli, Stephen R. Kraus, Peggy Norton, Emily Lukacz, Larry Sirls, Harry Johnson, . (2009) Mixed incontinence: Comparing definitions in women having stress incontinence surgery. Neurourology and Urodynamics 28:4, 268-273
CrossRef75
Emanuel C. Trabuco, Christopher J. Klingele, Amy L. Weaver, Michaela E. McGree, Deborah J. Lightner, John B. Gebhart. (2009) Medium-term comparison of continence rates after rectus fascia or midurethral sling placement. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 200:3, 300.e1-300.e6
CrossRef76
Grace Y. Biggs, Katie N. Ballert, Nirit Rosenblum, Victor Nitti. (2009) Patient-reported outcomes for tension-free vaginal tape-obturator in women treated with a previous anti-incontinence procedure. International Urogynecology Journal 20:3, 331-335
CrossRef77
William Steers, Holly Richter, Leroy Nyberg, John Kusek, Stephen Kraus, Kimberly Dandreo, Toby Chai, Linda Brubaker. (2009) Challenges of conducting multi-center, multi-disciplinary urinary incontinence clinical trials: Experience of the urinary incontinence Treatment Network. Neurourology and Urodynamics 28:3, 170-176
CrossRef78
Thythy Pham, Kimberly Kenton, Elizabeth Mueller, Linda Brubaker. (2009) New pelvic symptoms are common after reconstructive pelvic surgery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 200:1, 88.e1-88.e5
CrossRef79
Ilker Yalcin, Guangbin Peng, Lars Viktrup, Richard C. Bump. (2009) Reductions in stress urinary incontinence episodes: What is clinically important for Women?. Neurourology and Urodynamicsn/a-n/a
CrossRef80
Christopher M. Wilson, B. Jill Williams, Seth Bilello, Alex Gomelsky. (2008) Bovine dermis: a novel biologic substitute for autologous tissue in sling surgery. International Urogynecology Journal 19:12, 1671-1676
CrossRef81
Ming-Ping Wu, Kuan-Hui Huang, Cheng-Yu Long, Kuo-Feng Huang, Ken-Jen Yu, Chao-Hsiun Tang. (2008) The distribution of different surgical types for female stress urinary incontinence among patients’ age, surgeons’ specialties and hospital accreditations in Taiwan: a descriptive 10-year nationwide study. International Urogynecology Journal 19:12, 1639-1646
CrossRef82
S. L. Tennstedt, H. J. Litman, P. Zimmern, C. Ghetti, J. W. Kusek, C. W. Nager, E. R. Mueller, S. R. Kraus, E. Varner, . (2008) Quality of life after surgery for stress incontinence. International Urogynecology Journal 19:12, 1631-1638
CrossRef83
Gary E. Lemack, Stephen Krauss, Heather Litman, Mary Pat FitzGerald, Toby Chai, Charles Nager, Larry Sirls, Halina Zyczynski, Jan Baker, Keith Lloyd, W.D. Steers. (2008) Normal Preoperative Urodynamic Testing Does Not Predict Voiding Dysfunction After Burch Colposuspension Versus Pubovaginal Sling. The Journal of Urology 180:5, 2076-2080
CrossRef84
Michael Fialkow, Rebecca Gaston Symons, David Flum. (2008) Reoperation for urinary incontinence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199:5, 546.e1-546.e8
CrossRef85
Firouz Daneshgari, Wesley Kong, Mia Swartz. (2008) Complications of Mid Urethral Slings: Important Outcomes for Future Clinical Trials. The Journal of Urology 180:5, 1890-1897
CrossRef86
Harriette Scarpero. (2008) What Criteria Should Urologists Use When Choosing Surgery for Stress Urinary Incontinence?. The Journal of Urology 180:5, 1886-1887
CrossRef87
Jennifer T. Anger, Mark S. Litwin, Qin Wang, Chris L. Pashos, Larissa V. Rodríguez. (2008) The Effect of Concomitant Prolapse Repair on Sling Outcomes. The Journal of Urology 180:3, 1003-1006
CrossRef88
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
CrossRef89
Holly E. Richter, Patricia S. Goode, Linda Brubaker, Halina Zyczynski, Anne M. Stoddard, Kimberly J. Dandreo, Peggy A. Norton. (2008) Two-Year Outcomes After Surgery for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Older Compared With Younger Women. Obstetrics & Gynecology 112:3, 621-629
CrossRef90
Husam Abed, Rebecca G. Rogers. (2008) Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Diagnosis and Treatment for the Primary Care Physician. Medical Clinics of North America 92:5, 1273-1293
CrossRef91
Kari A.O. Tikkinen, Anssi Auvinen, Aila Tiitinen, Antti Valpas, Theodore M. Johnson, Teuvo L.J. Tammela. (2008) Reproductive factors associated with nocturia and urinary urgency in women: a population-based study in Finland. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199:2, 153.e1-153.e12
CrossRef92
Lior Lowenstein, Cedric Olivera, Heidi Harvie, Joseph Schaffer, Stephen Young. (2008) The Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network (FPRN). International Urogynecology Journal 19:7, 895-897
CrossRef93
Yvonne Katherine P Koch, Philippe Zimmern. (2008) A critical overview of the evidence base for the contemporary surgical management of stress incontinence. Current Opinion in Urology 18:4, 370-376
CrossRef94
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
CrossRef95
Kwong-Pang Tsui, Soo-Cheen Ng, Guang-Perng Yeh, Pao-Chun Hsieh, Long-Yau Lin, Gin-Den Chen. (2008) Outcomes of autologous fascial slingplasty procedure for treating female urinary incontinence. International Urogynecology Journal 19:7, 949-954
CrossRef96
Kathie L. Hullfish. (2008) Pelvic Floor Dysfunction—What Do Women Really Want?. The Journal of Urology 179:6, 2092-2093
CrossRef97
Annette Kuhn, Werner Stadlmayr, Daniela Lengsfeld, Michel D. Mueller. (2008) Where should bulking agents for female urodynamic stress incontinence be injected?. International Urogynecology Journal 19:6, 817-821
CrossRef98
Charles W. Nager, MaryPat FitzGerald, Stephen R. Kraus, Toby C. Chai, Halina Zyczynski, Larry Sirls, Gary E. Lemack, L. Keith Lloyd, Heather J. Litman, Anne M. Stoddard, Jan Baker, William Steers. (2008) Urodynamic Measures Do Not Predict Stress Continence Outcomes After Surgery for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Selected Women. The Journal of Urology 179:4, 1470-1474
CrossRef99
Rogers, Rebecca G., . (2008) Urinary Stress Incontinence in Women. New England Journal of Medicine 358:10, 1029-1036
Full Text100
Holly E. Richter, Ananias Diokno, Kimberly Kenton, Peggy Norton, Michael Albo, Stephen Kraus, Pamela Moalli, Toby C. Chai, Philippe Zimmern, Heather Litman, Sharon Tennstedt. (2008) Predictors of Treatment Failure 24 Months After Surgery for Stress Urinary Incontinence. The Journal of Urology 179:3, 1024-1030
CrossRef101
Matthew D. Barber, Steven Kleeman, Mickey M. Karram, Marie Fidela R. Paraiso, Mark D. Walters, Sandip Vasavada, Mark Ellerkmann. (2008) Transobturator Tape Compared With Tension-Free Vaginal Tape for the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence. Obstetrics & Gynecology 111:3, 611-621
CrossRef102
AMY R. KANE, CHARLES W. NAGER. (2008) Midurethral Slings for Stress Urinary Incontinence. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 51:1, 124-135
CrossRef103
&NA;. (2008) FEMALE URINARY STRESS INCONTINENCE. AJN, American Journal of Nursing 108:2, 72DD
CrossRef104
Neena Agarwala. (2008) A Randomized Comparison of Two Synthetic Mid-Urethral Tension-Free Slings. UroToday International Journal 01:04,
CrossRef105
Neil T. Dwyer, Karl J. Kreder. 2008. FASCIA LATA SLING. , 406-414.
CrossRef106
Michael Mitterberger, Germar-Michael Pinggera, Rainer Marksteiner, Eva Margreiter, Martin Fussenegger, Ferdinand Frauscher, Hanno Ulmer, Steffen Hering, Georg Bartsch, Hannes Strasser. (2008) Adult Stem Cell Therapy of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence. European Urology 53:1, 169-175
CrossRef107
Sam Siddighi, Mickey M Karram. (2007) Surgical and nonsurgical approaches to treat voiding dysfunction following antiincontinence surgery. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 19:5, 490-495
CrossRef108
Christopher R. Chapple, Anand K. Patel. (2007) How Robust is the Evidence for Slings in the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence?. European Urology 52:3, 645-647
CrossRef109
(2007) Fascial sling more effective than Burch colposuspension at reducing stress incontinence. Nature Clinical Practice Urology 4:8, 407-407
CrossRef110
Strohbehn, Kris, . (2007) Shades of Dry — Curing Urinary Stress Incontinence. New England Journal of Medicine 356:21, 2198-2200
Full Text
