Laparoscopic versus open Burch retropubic urethropexy: Comparison of morbidity and costs when performed with concurrent vaginal prolapse repairs

Andrew J. Walter, Abraham N. Morse, Robert H. Hammer, Joseph G. Hentz, Javier F. Magrina, Jeffrey L. Cornella, Paul M. Magtibay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the morbidity and cost that are associated with laparoscopic and open Burch retropubic urethropexy when they are performed with concurrent vaginal prolapse repairs. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective study of all patients who had undergone laparoscopic (n = 76) or open (n = 143) Burch retropubic urethropexy with at least 1 concurrent vaginal repaii for symptomatic prolapse. We compared demographic data, level of prolapse, operative and postoperative details, medical and surgical histories, complications, and hospital charges. RESULTS: The group with open retropubic urethropexy had an older age, greater degree of prolapse, fewer concurrent hysterectomies, and a greater number of vaginal procedures than the group with laparoscopic retropubic urethropexy. There were minimal differences in complications and no differences in the estimated blood loss, operative time, hemoglobin change, hospitalization, or hospital charges between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Traditional benefits of laparoscopic retropubic urethropexy were not apparent when vaginal prolapse repairs were performed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)723-728
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology
Volume186
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2002

Keywords

  • Butch retropubic urethropexy
  • Laparoscopy
  • Vaginal prolapse repair

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Laparoscopic versus open Burch retropubic urethropexy: Comparison of morbidity and costs when performed with concurrent vaginal prolapse repairs'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this