Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Prospective randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open colposuspension.

W C Cheon1, J H L Mak, J Y S Liu

  • 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 30 Gascoigne Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Medical Journal = Xianggang Yi Xue Za Zhi
|January 28, 2003
PubMed
Summary

Laparoscopic colposuspension offers a comparable short-term cure rate for genuine stress incontinence compared to open surgery. While operating time is longer, it presents a feasible alternative with similar safety and efficacy.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Benign metastasising leiomyoma: a rare but possible cause of bilateral pulmonary nodules in Chinese patients.

Hong Kong medical journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhiยท2005
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Urogynecology
  • Minimally Invasive Surgery
  • Pelvic Floor Disorders

Background:

  • Genuine stress incontinence (GSI) significantly impacts women's quality of life.
  • Colposuspension is a surgical treatment for GSI.
  • Laparoscopic techniques offer potential advantages over open surgery.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the efficacy, safety, complications, and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open colposuspension for GSI.

Main Methods:

  • A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 90 women diagnosed with urodynamically proven GSI.
  • Patients were randomized to undergo either open colposuspension (43 patients) or laparoscopic colposuspension (47 patients).
  • Outcomes were assessed using objective and subjective measures, including complication rates, within one year post-operation.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Laparoscopic colposuspension had a significantly longer mean operating time (42.0 min vs. 29.3 min) but significantly less blood loss (124.7 mL vs. 326.9 mL).
  • Short-term (1-year) subjective and objective success rates were similar between the laparoscopic and open groups (86.0% vs. 80.9% and 86.0% vs. 85.1%, respectively).
  • No significant differences were observed in complication rates, including de novo detrusor instability, obstructive voiding, enterocele, or dyspareunia.

Conclusions:

  • Laparoscopic colposuspension is a viable alternative to the open surgical approach for treating genuine stress incontinence.
  • Despite a longer operative time, laparoscopic colposuspension demonstrates comparable short-term efficacy and safety profiles to open colposuspension.