↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

3 X users
1 peer review site
1 research highlight platform


89 Dimensions

Readers on

335 Mendeley
Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002912.pub7
Pubmed ID

Marie Carmela M Lapitan, June D Cody, Atefeh Mashayekhi


Urinary incontinence is a common and potentially debilitating problem. Stress urinary, incontinence as the most common type of incontinence, imposes significant health and economic burdens on society and the women affected. Open retropubic colposuspension is a surgical treatment which involves lifting the tissues near the bladder neck and proximal urethra in the area behind the anterior pubic bones to correct deficient urethral closure to correct stress urinary incontinence. The review aimed to determine the effects of open retropubic colposuspension for the treatment of urinary incontinence in women. A secondary aim was to assess the safety of open retropubic colposuspension in terms of adverse events caused by the procedure. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 5 May 2015), and the reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted investigators to locate extra studies. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with symptoms or urodynamic diagnoses of stress or mixed urinary incontinence that included open retropubic colposuspension surgery in at least one trial group. Studies were evaluated for methodological quality or susceptibility to bias and appropriateness for inclusion and data extracted by two of the review authors. Trial data were analysed by intervention. Where appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated. This review included 55 trials involving a total of 5417 women.Overall cure rates were 68.9% to 88.0% for open retropubic colposuspension. Two small studies suggested lower incontinence rates after open retropubic colposuspension compared with conservative treatment. Similarly, one trial suggested lower incontinence rates after open retropubic colposuspension compared to anticholinergic treatment. Evidence from six trials showed a lower incontinence rate after open retropubic colposuspension than after anterior colporrhaphy. Such benefit was maintained over time (risk ratio (RR) for incontinence 0.46; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.72 before the first year, RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.51 at one to five years, RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.75 in periods beyond five years).Evidence from 22 trials in comparison with suburethral slings (traditional slings or trans-vaginal tape or transobturator tape) found no overall significant difference in incontinence rates in all time periods evaluated (as assessed subjectively RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.18, within one year of treatment, RR 1.18; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.39 between one and five years, RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27 at five years and more, and as assessed objectively RR 1.24; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.67 within one year of treatment, RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.54 for one to five years follow up, RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.64 at more than five years). However, subgroup analysis of studies comparing traditional slings and open colposuspension showed better effectiveness with traditional slings in the medium and long term (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64 from one to five years follow up, RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.37).In comparison with needle suspension, there was a lower incontinence rate after colposuspension in the first year after surgery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03), after the first year (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81), and beyond five years (RR 0.32; 95% CI 15 to 0.71).Patient-reported incontinence rates at short, medium and long-term follow-up showed no significant differences between open and laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, but with wide confidence intervals. In two trials incontinence was less common after the Burch (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76) than after the Marshall Marchetti Krantz procedure at one to five year follow-up. There were few data at any other follow-up times.In general, the evidence available does not show a higher morbidity or complication rate with open retropubic colposuspension compared to the other open surgical techniques, although pelvic organ prolapse is more common than after anterior colporrhaphy and sling procedures. Voiding problems are also more common after sling procedures compared to open colposuspension. Open retropubic colposuspension is an effective treatment modality for stress urinary incontinence especially in the long term. Within the first year of treatment, the overall continence rate is approximately 85% to 90%. After five years, approximately 70% of women can expect to be dry. Newer minimal access sling procedures look promising in comparison with open colposuspension but their long-term performance is limited and closer monitoring of their adverse event profile must be carried out. Open colposuspension is associated with a higher risk of pelvic organ prolapse compared to sling operations and anterior colporrhaphy, but with a lower risk of voiding dysfunction compared to traditional sling surgery. Laparoscopic colposuspension should allow speedier recovery but its relative safety and long-term effectiveness is not yet known. A Brief Economic Commentary (BEC) identified five studies suggesting that tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and laparoscopic colposuspension may be more cost-effective compared with open retropubic colposuspension.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 335 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 335 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 13%
Student > Bachelor 43 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 9%
Researcher 27 8%
Other 20 6%
Other 59 18%
Unknown 111 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 110 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 10%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Psychology 11 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Other 40 12%
Unknown 118 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2019.
All research outputs
of 22,992,311 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 316,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,992,311 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.