Colposuspension or sling for low urethral pressure stress incontinence?

The aim of this study was to compare Burch colposuspension with the pubovaginal sling in the management of low urethral pressure urinary stress incontinence. Forty-five women with low urethral pressure stress incontinence were retrospectively reviewed: 21 underwent colposuspension and 24 a pubovaginal sling. The subjective success rate of the Burch colposuspension and the pubovaginal sling was 90% and 71% (P = 0.12), respectively; the objective success rate was 67% and 50% (P = 0.26), respectively. The incidence of postoperative complications, including de novo detrusor instability and symptomatic voiding dysfunction following the colposuspension, was 5% compared to 25% following the pubovaginal sling (P = 0.06). Colposuspension should be considered in the management of women undergoing surgical correction of low urethral pressure stress incontinence. In a clinically similar group of women, the Burch colposuspension had a superior subjective and objective success rate with a lower incidence of complications than did the pubovaginal sling. Although these differences failed to reach statistical significance, colposuspension can be safely considered in the management of women with low urethral pressure GSI.