Laparoscopic burch colposuspension: comparison of effectiveness of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal techniques

To compare the effectiveness of two different laparoscopic colposuspension procedures: extraperitoneal approach using mesh fixed with tacks, and transperitoneal approach using sutures.

We conducted a retrospective study of all patients (n = 64) who had undergone two different techniques of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension without additional surgeries over a 6-year period. Thirty-six women underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal colposuspension with using nonabsorbable sutures (group A), whereas 28 women underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal colposuspension with using mesh and preperitoneal balloon dissection technique (group B). Cure rate was assessed by simple cystometry with a cough stress test in the standing position. Both groups were compared with regard to cure rates, operative time, length of hospital stay, complications, estimated blood loss, and total hospital charges.

The mean times to follow-up were 25.7 months in the group A and 27.3 months in the group B (P = 0.082). At last follow-up, 33 of 36 (91.7%) patients in the group A and 23 of 28 (82.1%) patients in the group B were continent (P = 0.22). The other results were as follows for group A and B, respectively: average duration of surgery, 58.1 compared with 46.8 min (P = 0.001); average hospital stay, 2.05 compared with 1.57 days (P = 0.02); the intraoperative complication rate, 8.3% compared with 7.1% (P = 0.62). The total hospital charges for the group B were found significantly higher (US dollars 2,234 versus US dollars 1,348, P = 0.001).

Although we found higher cure rates in laparoscopic colposuspension with the transperitoneal approach using sutures than the extraperitoneal approach using mesh fixed with tacks, there was no statistically significant difference between the two procedures. In comparison with extraperitoneal mesh technique, lower cost is the superiority of the transperitoneal suture technique.