A prospective randomized trial comparing a modified needle suspension procedure with the vagindobturator shelf procedure for genuine stress incontinence

Abstract

To compare two procedures for the treatment of genuine stress incontinence in patients selected randomly. Fifty patients with proven genuine stress incontinence were randomized prospectively over a 3 year period to be treated either by a modified needle suspension (MNS) (n = 26) or by a vagina/obturator shelf (VOS) (n = 24) procedure. In patients who had not undergone previous surgery for incontinence, the VOS procedure was superior with 12 of 14 patients achieving continence compared with eight of 15 patients in the MNS group (P < 0.05). In women who had undergone previous surgery seven of 11 were continent following MNS compared with five of 10 after a VOS procedure. Both techniques had a much lower continence rate when compared with a classical colposuspension operation which was reported in a previous series. As a primary procedure VOS was more successful than MNS. In patients who had undergone previous surgery for incontinence neither procedure gave acceptable results.