Evidence Hub

A randomized controlled trial comparing a modified Burch procedure and a suburethral sling: long-term follow-up

Culligan PJ, Goldberg RP, Sand PK

International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction, 2003

19 participants

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term results of a modified Burch procedure with a sling procedure for the treatment of stress incontinence with a low-pressure urethra. Thirty-six women with urodynamic stress incontinence, low-pressure urethra, urethral hypermobility and no significant pelvic organ prolapse were randomly assigned to undergo either a modified Burch procedure ( n=19) or a sling placement ( n=17). Cure of the stress incontinence (defined as a negative stress test and negative pad-weight test) was the primary long-term endpoint. Secondary endpoints included subjective cure of stress incontinence (defined as no incontinence episodes on a 1-week voiding diary) and voiding function studies. Comparisons of group means were performed with the Mann-Whitney U-test, pooled variance t-tests and separate variance t-tests. Proportions were compared with Fisher's exact test. A logistic regression analysis was performed to control for covariates that differed in our two groups despite randomization. Long-term follow-up (mean=72.6 months) was available for 82% (28/34) of the original study group. The objective cure rates for the Burch and sling groups were 84.6% and 100%, respectively ( P=0.17). Mean uroflowmetry rates for the Burch and sling groups were 7.38 and 6.8 ml/s, respectively ( P=0.58, 95%CI -2.5, 4.4). Mean postvoid residual volumes for both groups were 35 ml ( P=0.97, 95% CI -23.8, 65.9). Two sling patients (12%) required partial resection of their…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 19 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free