Comparison of outcomes of Burch colposuspension and transobturator tape and single incision needleless procedures (DynaMesh®-SIS minor) for the surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence patients who underwent combined pelvic reconstructive surgery or hysterectomy

Akdemir, Yeşim; Dincer, Fadime; Buyukuysal, Cagatay; Özmen, Ülkü; Harma, Müge; Harma, Mehmet

doi:10.1007/s11255-020-02549-0

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several observational and randomized studies have showed similar eficacy and lower morbidity for MUS procedures compared to Burch colposuspension. 8 9 10 17 Others have cited that there was no statistically significant difference in subjective cure rates, but the objective cure rates tended to be higher for MUS. 19 20 21 22 Even if the definition of objective cure varied widely between available studies, many of them still report that MUSs (retropubic slings or transobturator slings) are superior to Burch colposuspension surgery.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the advancements in laparoscopic techniques, laparoscopic Burch colposuspension is gaining popularity as a non-mesh alternative, minimally invasive SUI surgery, which is as effective as open surgery. [8][9][10] Given this scenario, the present historical perspective aims to write a narrative review, a systematic search on the history of the Burch procedure. This review can encourage urogynecological surgeons to master the Burch technique as one of the options for the surgical treatment of SUI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Burch Procedure: A Historical Perspective

Marquini

Bella

Sartori

2022

Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The Burch procedure (1961) was considered the gold standard treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) before the midurethral slings (MUSs) were introduced, in 2001. Objective This historical perspective of the Burch's timeline can encourage urogynecological surgeons to master the Burch technique as one of the options for surgical treatment of SUI. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria A bibliographic search was performed in the PubMed and National Library of Medicine (NIH) databases with the terms Burch colposuspension AND history AND stress urinary incontinence in the last 20 years. The original article by Burch (1961) was included. The references were read by three authors. The exclusion criterion was studies in non-English languages. Biomedical Library Special Collections were included as historical relevant search. Data Collection, Analysis and Main Results Some modifications of the technique have been made since the Burch procedure was first described. The interest in this technique has been increasing due to the negative publicity associated with vaginal synthetic mesh products. Twenty-nine relevant articles were included in the present review article, and numerous trials have compared Burch colposuspension with MUS. Conclusion This historical perspective enables the scientific community to review a standardized technique for SUI. Burch colposuspension should be considered an appropriate surgical treatment for women with SUI, and an option in urogynecological training programs worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Burch Procedure: A Historical Perspective

Marquini

Bella

Sartori

2022

Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature review initially yielded 1750 articles. After removing duplicates and screening studies based on their titles and abstracts, seventeen [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] studies were found, including retrospective and prospective ones. Comparative studies comprised the entirety of those included in this meta-analysis.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Eligible Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This collection of articles spans the years 2011 through 2023. Six of the seventeen articles were observational cohort studies [20,[22][23][24]26,27], and the other eleven were controlled trials [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]21,25,28,29]. Of the eleven controlled trials, nine were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one was a controlled clinical trial (CCT) [18], and one was a quasi-randomized trial [15].…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Eligible Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single Incision Mini-Sling Versus Mid-Urethral Sling (Transobturator/Retropubic) in Females With Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Patel¹,

Sugandh²,

Bai³

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stress urine incontinence (SUI) is most common in middle-aged women and the second most common in those over 75. SUI causes significant discomfort and suffering for patients and has a considerable financial impact on the healthcare system. Conservative approaches are recommended as the first step in treatment. However, surgery is often necessary to improve a patient's quality of life due to the high failure rate of conservative treatments. A thorough literature review of studies published before March 2023 was conducted on the safety and effectiveness of single-incision mini slings (SIMS) and standard mid-urethral slings (MUS). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect were used to retrieve the studies. Two reviewers independently searched and evaluated the data based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Review Manager 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. Included were seventeen studies involving 3,503 female SUI patients without intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD) or mixed urinary incontinence. According to the results of our meta-analysis, the clinical efficacy of SIMS is comparable to that of MUS in terms of objective cure rate (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.03, p: 0.66, I2: 29%). In contrast, it increases the post-procedure International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) score (WMD: 0.08; 95%

show abstract

Non-invasive wearable devices for urinary incontinence detection—a mini review

Ben Arous,

Haddar,

Truong

et al. 2023

Front. Sens.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with urinary incontinence (UI) often face a significant social stigma feeling ashamed of their condition and worrying about others discovering it. In order to improve the quality of life of those with incontinence, recent technological advancements enabled the development of non-invasive devices for detecting urinary leakage (UL). However, no comprehensive study has been conducted to state the most suitable types of sensors and the fundamental features necessary to design such devices, while also pointing gaps for future research. To address this, we conducted a mini review using four electronic databases limiting our search to English-written papers published in peer-reviewed journals. We retrieved articles that met the chosen inclusion criteria and classified them based on sensor type used, its location, the detection technique employed, and whether it was an e-Textile design and a reusable product or not. Across the studies, UL was detected using different approaches leading to heterogeneous results. Electrodes commonly used as sensing elements, along with textile as substrate material, and an indicator of UL based on resistance value, appeared to be widely exploited. However, the outcomes were not correlated with any specific type of UI. Consequently, we hypothesize that any non-invasive device could potentially be used for different types of UI. Nevertheless, further studies need to be conducted to confirm this statement. The designed literature mapping provides readers with an overview of the recent non-invasive wearable technologies in UL detection and offers a roadmap for future innovations.

show abstract

Comparison of outcomes of Burch colposuspension and transobturator tape and single incision needleless procedures (DynaMesh®-SIS minor) for the surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence patients who underwent combined pelvic reconstructive surgery or hysterectomy

Cited by 3 publications

References 32 publications

Burch Procedure: A Historical Perspective

Burch Procedure: A Historical Perspective

Single Incision Mini-Sling Versus Mid-Urethral Sling (Transobturator/Retropubic) in Females With Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Non-invasive wearable devices for urinary incontinence detection—a mini review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About