The Southern Medical Journal (SMJ) is the official, peer-reviewed journal of the Southern Medical Association. It has a multidisciplinary and inter-professional focus that covers a broad range of topics relevant to physicians and other healthcare specialists.

SMJ // Article

Original Article

Minimally Invasive Burch Colposuspension to Reduce De Novo Stress Incontinence: The MICRO Randomized Trial

Authors: Tsung Mou, MD, Akira Gillingham, MD, Julia Geynisman-Tan, MD, Oluwateniola Brown, MD, Christina Lewicky-Gaupp, MD, Margaret G. Mueller, MD, Kimberly Kenton, MD, MS, Sarah Collins, MD

Abstract

Objective: The objective was to determine whether the addition of prophylactic retropubic colposuspension is superior to no anti-incontinence procedure during minimally invasive surgical sacrocolpopexy for stress-continent patients in decreasing rates of postoperative de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Methods: In this randomized superiority trial, we recruited stress-continent prolapse patients undergoing either conventional or robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with negative preoperative supine cough stress tests. Patients were randomized to receive either prophylactic retropubic colposuspension or no retropubic colposuspension (control). The primary outcome was the composite measure of postoperative de novo SUI at 3 months, which included either (1) “Yes” to Question #17 on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 endorsing symptoms of urinary leakage with coughing, sneezing, laughing, (2) positive retrofill cough stress test, or (3) any SUI treatment after sacrocolpopexy. Using data from the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts trial, a sample size of 42 participants would demonstrate the addition of prophylactic retropubic colposuspension to be superior to control with a superiority margin of 15%.

Results: Fifty patients underwent randomization, with 26 assigned to prophylactic retropubic colposuspension and 24 as controls. Three months after surgery, 50.0% of the patients in the retropubic colposuspension group and 41.7% of controls met one or more criteria for de novo SUI (P = 0.555). There was no difference between the retropubic colposuspension and control groups in symptoms of urinary frequency, urgency incontinence, or urinary retention at 3 months.

Conclusions: Among stress-continent patients undergoing minimally invasive surgical sacrocolpopexy in this single-center study, the addition of prophylactic retropubic colposuspension was not superior to no retropubic colposuspension in preventing postoperative de novo SUI at 3 months after surgery.
Posted in: Obstetrics and Gynecology94

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;104(4):805–823.
 
2. Lensen EJM, Withagen MIJ, Kluivers KB, et al. Urinary incontinence after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2013;32(5):455–459.
 
3. Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. New England Journal of Medicine 2006;354(15):1557–66.
 
4. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, et al. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008;112(6): 1201–1206.
 
5. Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, et al. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2005;192(5): 1752–1758.
 
6. Tyson MD, Wolter CE. A comparison of 30-day surgical outcomes for minimally invasive and open sacrocolpopexy. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2015;34(2):151–155.
 
7. Pan K, Zhang Y, Wang Y, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2016;132(3):284–291.
 
8. Zemtsov GE, Jelovsek E, O’Shea M, et al. Trends in Performance of Anti-Incontinence Treatment at the Time of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair From 2011 to 2019. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 2022;10:1097.
 
9. Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter HE, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. New England Journal of Medicine 2012;366(25):2358–2367.
 
10. Clark SG, Melnyk AI, Bonidie M, et al. Operative Time for Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy: Comparison of Conventional Laparoscopy versus Robotic Platform. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2022;29(9):1063–1067.
 
11. Tanagho EA. Colpocystourethropexy: the way we do it. Journal of Urology 1976;116(6): 751–753.
 
12. Wang X, Ji X. Sample size estimation in clinical research: from randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Chest 2020;158.
 
13. Dean N, Ellis G, Herbison GP, et al. Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017;7.
 
14. Vancaillie TG, Schuessler W. Laparoscopic bladderneck suspension. Journal of Laparoendoscopic Surgery 1991;1(3):169–173.
 
15. Moehrer B, Ellis G, Carey MM, et al. Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000;3.