A prospective randomized study comparing modified Burch retropubic urethropexy and suburethral sling for treatment of genuine stress incontinence with low-pressure urethra
- 1 January 2000
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Elsevier in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Vol. 182 (1) , 30-34
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(00)70487-x
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Long-term clinical and urodynamic evaluation of the polytetrafluoroethylene suburethral sling for treatment of genuine stress incontinencePublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,2000
- Postoperative catheterization, urinary retention, and permanent voiding dysfunction after polytetrafluoroethylene suburethral sling placementPublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1999
- Comparison of burch and lyodura sling procedures for repair of unsuccessful incontinence surgeryObstetrics & Gynecology, 1996
- Three surgical procedures for genuine stress incontinence: Five-year follow-up of a prospective randomized studyAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1995
- A prospective randomized trial comparing a modified needle suspension procedure with the vagindobturator shelf procedure for genuine stress incontinenceBritish Journal of Urology, 1994
- Primary stress urinary incontinence and pelvic relaxation: Prospective randomized comparison of three different operationsAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1989
- Standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract functionNeurourology and Urodynamics, 1988
- Modifications of the urethral rest and stress profiles after different types of surgery for urinary stress incontinenceBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1984
- A Trial Comparing the Stamey Bladder Neck Suspension Procedure with Colposuspension for the Treatment of Stress IncontinenceBritish Journal of Urology, 1983
- A Comparison of Vaginal and Suprapubic Surgery in the Correction of Incontinence due to Urethral Sphincter IncompetenceBritish Journal of Urology, 1979