A total of 51 consecutive female patients with genuine stress incontinence who underwent a Burch or Stamey operation were clinically and urodynamically evaluated preoperatively at least 8 months postoperatively. Our study group consisted of 27 women who underwent the Burch colposuspension and 24 who had the Stamey endoscopic bladder neck suspension. The urodynamic parameters which were studied pre- and postoperatively were the maximum flow rate (Qmax), the residual urine (Vres), the first sensation (FS), the bladder capacity (BC), the maximum vesical pressure (Pves max), the detrusor pressure at maximum flow (Pdet/Qmax), the functional urethral length (Lfun) and the maximum closure pressure (Pclos max) The successful results of the operations were 89% for Burch and 83% for the Stamey procedure. As for differing objective urodynamic findings, the Qmax, Pclos max, Vres and Lfun for both groups were the only parameters which showed statistically significant difference after surgery. The statistical comparison of the postoperative urodynamic parameters of the two operative techniques showed that Lfun, Pves max and Pclos max had difference in favor of Burch colposuspension. There were not statistical differences in the other studied parameters. In conclusion, according to the differentiation in the values of Pclos max, Lfun and Pves max, the Burch technique seems to result in a higher increase of patient’s urethral resistance.

Keywords:
Urinary incontinence, Urodynamic studies, Burch colposuspension, Stamey endoscopic suspension
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1996 S. Karger AG, Basel
1996
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.