Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Urology
Published in: World Journal of Urology 6/2020

01-06-2020 | Stress Incontinence | Topic Paper

Making surgery safer through adequate communication with the stakeholders: vaginal slings

Authors: Sandra Elmer, Janelle Brennan, Rebecca Mathieson, Briony Norris, Marcus Carey, Caroline Dowling

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

In this review, we explore the evidence behind mid-urethral sling (MUS) surgery, review the rising reports of complications and the subsequent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and society statements, and evaluate risk perception and communication with patients, doctors, governing bodies, manufacturers and insurance companies. Our aim was to explore the pitfalls in communication that may be contributing to the decline in MUS use, and develop strategies to make MUS surgery safer.

Methods

We searched the English language literature using PubMed for articles related to the management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), MUS, safety and monitoring of transvaginal mesh (TVM), and reviewed all online FDA publications and international position statements regarding MUS for SUI.

Results

Polypropylene mesh has been used in MUS since the 1990s, with robust evidence to support its use. There has been a decline in the use of MUS ever since the FDA notifications. In response to the controversy surrounding TVM, position statements have been released portending the safety of, and advocating for the continued use of, MUS for the management of SUI.

Conclusions

MUS is a viable, effective and safe treatment for SUI management. Physicians should obtain and document informed consent, be adequately trained, and monitor and report their outcomes using registries. With publication of registry results and ongoing health advocacy, the perception of the safety of MUS can improve and MUS can still be offered as a treatment option for SUI.
Literature
1.
Abrams P et al (2018) 6th International consultation on incontinence. Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF URINARY INCONTINENCE, PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE AND FAECAL INCONTINENCE. Neurourol. Urodyn. 37(7):2271–2272PubMedCrossRef
2.
Petros PE, Ulmsten UI (1993) An integral theory and its method for the diagnosis and management of female urinary incontinence. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. Suppl. 153:1–93PubMed
3.
Ford AA et al (2017) Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 7:Cd006375PubMed
4.
Nilsson CG (1998) The tensionfree vaginal tape procedure (TVT) for treatment of female urinary incontinence. A minimal invasive surgical procedure. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. Suppl. 168:34–37PubMed
5.
Khan AA, Brucker RN, Nitti V (2017) Changes in management of stress urinary incontinence following the 2011 FDA Health Notification. J Clin Urol 10(5):440–448CrossRef
6.
Keltie K et al (2017) Complications following vaginal mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence: an 8 year study of 92,246 women. Sci Rep 7(1):12015PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Lavelle ES, Zyczynski HM (2016) Stress urinary incontinence: comparative efficacy trials. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 43(1):45–57CrossRef
8.
Deng DY et al (2007) Presentation and management of major complications of midurethral slings: are complications under-reported? Neurourol. Urodyn. 26(1):46–52PubMedCrossRef
9.
Barber MD, Maher C (2013) Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J. 24(11):1783–1790PubMedCrossRef
10.
Larouche M, Geoffrion R, Walter JE (2017) No. 351-transvaginal mesh procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 39(11):1085–1097PubMedCrossRef
11.
Shah AD et al (2008) The age distribution, rates, and types of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in the USA. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(3):421–428PubMedCrossRef
12.
Altman D et al (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(19):1826–1836PubMedCrossRef
13.
Iyer S, Botros SM (2017) Transvaginal mesh: a historical review and update of the current state of affairs in the United States. Int. Urogynecol. J. 28(4):527–535PubMedCrossRef
14.
Maher C et al (2016) Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 11:Cd004014PubMed
15.
Bjelic-Radisic V et al (2014) Vaginal prolapse surgery with transvaginal mesh: results of the Austrian registry. Int. Urogynecol. J. 25(8):1047–1052PubMedCrossRef
16.
Withagen MI et al (2011) Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tension-free vaginal mesh procedure. Obstet. Gynecol. 118(3):629–636PubMedCrossRef
17.
Heneghan CJ et al (2017) Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process. BMJ Open 7(12):e017125PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
19.
20.
Bako A, Dhar R (2009) Review of synthetic mesh-related complications in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(1):103–111PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Koski ME, Rovner ES (2014) Implications of the FDA statement on transvaginal placement of mesh: the aftermath. Curr Urol Rep 15(2):380PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
Souders CP et al (2018) The truth behind transvaginal mesh litigation: devices, timelines, and provider characteristics. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 24(1):21–25PubMedCrossRef
31.
Rogo-Gupta L et al (2013) Trends in the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence among female Medicare beneficiaries, 2002–2007. Urology 82(1):38–41PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Wang LC et al (2015) Trends in mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse repair from the Medicare database. Urology 86(5):885–891PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
35.
Chapple CR et al (2017) Consensus statement of the European Urology Association and the European Urogynaecological Association on the use of implanted materials for treating pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Eur. Urol. 72(3):424–431PubMedCrossRef
36.
Koski ME et al (2014) Patient perception of transvaginal mesh and the media. Urology 84(3):575–582PubMedCrossRef
37.
Tenggardjaja CF et al (2015) Evaluation of patients’ perceptions of mesh usage in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Urology 85(2):326–331PubMedCrossRef
38.
Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2005) The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 12(1):63–69PubMedCrossRef
39.
40.
41.
Rac G et al (2017) Stress urinary incontinence surgery trends in academic female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery urology practice in the setting of the food and drug administration public health notifications. Neurourol. Urodyn. 36(4):1155–1160PubMedCrossRef
42.
Clemons JL et al (2013) Impact of the 2011 FDA transvaginal mesh safety update on AUGS members’ use of synthetic mesh and biologic grafts in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19(4):191–198PubMedCrossRef
43.
Mathieson R, Kippern R, Brennan J (2019) Stress Urinary Incontinence in the mesh litigation era: a trend towards alternative treatments in Australia. BJU Int 123:4–28
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
Lee D, Zimmern PE (2015) Management of complications of mesh surgery. Curr. Opin. Urol. 25(4):284–291PubMed
49.
50.
Chermansky CJ, Winters JC (2012) Complications of vaginal mesh surgery. Curr. Opin. Urol. 22(4):287–291PubMedCrossRef
51.
Weber LeBrun EE (2016) Registries as tools for clinical excellence and the development of the pelvic floor disorders registry. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 43(1):121–130CrossRef
52.
53.
Metadata
Title
Making surgery safer through adequate communication with the stakeholders: vaginal slings
Authors
Sandra Elmer
Janelle Brennan
Rebecca Mathieson
Briony Norris
Marcus Carey
Caroline Dowling
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02859-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

World Journal of Urology 6/2020 Go to the issue

Original Article

Prognostic value of T1 substaging on oncological outcomes in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder urothelial carcinoma: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Correction

Correction to: The natural course of pT2 prostate cancer with positive surgical margin: predicting biochemical recurrence

Original Article

Analysis of quality of life and late biochemical predictors for localized cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy

Original Article

How to implement magnetic resonance imaging before prostate biopsy in clinical practice: nomograms for saving biopsies

Original Article

Metabolic changes with degarelix vs leuprolide plus bicalutamide in patients with prostate cancer: a randomized clinical study

Original Article

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus thulium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of large-volume prostates > 80 ml: 18-month follow-up results