Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic and Open Colposuspension: a Three-year Follow-up

Abstract

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.