Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic and Open Colposuspension: a Three-year Follow-up Abstract
WY CHAN, WC CHEON, WM TONG, YS LIU
Objectives:
To compare the efficacy, safety, complications, and intermediate-term outcomes of the open and
laparoscopic colposuspension in women with urodynamic stress incontinence.
Methods:
This randomised controlled trial was conducted from July 1999 to October 2003. 168 women with
urodynamic stress incontinence requiring anti-incontinence surgery were recruited. They were
randomly allocated to receive open or laparoscopic colposuspension. All patients were assessed at
first year and third year after the operation.
Results:
84 women were allocated to receive open colposuspension, while the remaining 84 women received
laparoscopic colposuspension. The laparoscopic group experienced significantly less blood loss,
faster recovery, and earlier return to normal work, although a longer operating time was required.
Subjective and objective success rates at first year and third year were similar for patients in the
open and laparoscopic groups—first year: 97.6% vs 95.1% (p=0.389) and 91.7% vs 86.6% (p=0.292)
respectively; third year: 95.8% vs 97.1% (p=0.672) and 78.9% vs 71.0% (p=0.283) respectively. There
were no significant differences in terms of immediate- and long-term complications at first and third
year between groups.
Conclusion:
Laparoscopic colposuspension can be as effective as open colposuspension in treating urodynamic
stress incontinence if performed by experienced hands.
Hong Kong J Gynaecol Obstet Midwifery 2008; 8:28-33
