Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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):2271–2272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 153:1–93

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ford AA et al (2017) Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 7:Cd006375

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 168:34–37

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):440–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):12015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lavelle ES, Zyczynski HM (2016) Stress urinary incontinence: comparative efficacy trials. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 43(1):45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Deng DY et al (2007) Presentation and management of major complications of midurethral slings: are complications under-reported? Neurourol. Urodyn. 26(1):46–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barber MD, Maher C (2013) Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J. 24(11):1783–1790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Larouche M, Geoffrion R, Walter JE (2017) No. 351-transvaginal mesh procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 39(11):1085–1097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):421–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Altman D et al (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(19):1826–1836

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):527–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Maher C et al (2016) Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 11:Cd004014

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bjelic-Radisic V et al (2014) Vaginal prolapse surgery with transvaginal mesh: results of the Austrian registry. Int. Urogynecol. J. 25(8):1047–1052

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Withagen MI et al (2011) Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tension-free vaginal mesh procedure. Obstet. Gynecol. 118(3):629–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):e017125

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. BMJ (2018) Investigation exposes ‘scandal’ that has left thousands of women irreversibly harmed. Medical Devices and Surgical Technology Week. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/investigation-exposes-vaginal-mesh-scandal-that-has-left-thousands-of-women-irreversibly-harmed/. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  19. Notification FPH (2008) Serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Issued: 20 October 2008. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/publichealthnotifications/ucm061976.htm. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  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):103–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Administration F (2011) Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/UCM262760.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  22. Administration, U.S.F.a.D (2016) FDA Strengthens requirements for surgical mesh for the transvaginal repeair of pelvic organ prolapse to address safety risks. Silver Springs, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2016. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm479732.htm. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  23. Orders. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/PostmarketSurveillance/ucm134497.htm. Accessed 28 May 2019

  24. TGA. TGA actions after review into urogynaecological surgical mesh implants [Online]. https://www.tga.gov.au/alert/tga-actions-after-review-urogynaecological-surgical-mesh-implants. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  25. TGA. Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report: The number of women in Australia who have had transvaginal mesh implants and related matters [Online]. https://www.tga.gov.au/australian-government-response-senate-community-affairs-references-committee-report. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  26. Stephen Unterberg TG (2019) Mesh in urological surgery in the UK—background, reviews and current status. https://www.urologynews.uk.com/features/features/post/mesh-in-urological-surgery-in-the-uk-background-reviews-and-current-status. Accessed 28 May 2019

  27. Administration, U.S.F.a.D (2019) FDA takes action to protect women’s health, orders manufacturers of surgical mesh intended for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse to stop selling all devices. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-protect-womens-health-orders-manufacturers-surgical-mesh-intended-transvaginal?utm_source=AAGL&utm_campaign=d741db6fc7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_04_30_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_528024759c-d741db6fc7-95019183. Accessed 26 May 2019

  28. Koski ME, Rovner ES (2014) Implications of the FDA statement on transvaginal placement of mesh: the aftermath. Curr Urol Rep 15(2):380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Reuters (2015) The Lien Machine. New breed of investor profits by financing surgeries for desperate women patients [Online]. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-litigation-mesh/. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  30. Souders CP et al (2018) The truth behind transvaginal mesh litigation: devices, timelines, and provider characteristics. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 24(1):21–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):38–41

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang LC et al (2015) Trends in mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse repair from the Medicare database. Urology 86(5):885–891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pierson B (2019) Doctor, medical funder charged in New York in transvaginal mesh fraud. https://news.yahoo.com/doctor-medical-funder-charged-york-transvaginal-mesh-fraud-212145151–finance.html. Accessed 26 May 2019

  34. Brown LK et al (2013) Defining patients’ knowledge and perceptions of vaginal mesh surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19(5):282–287

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):424–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Koski ME et al (2014) Patient perception of transvaginal mesh and the media. Urology 84(3):575–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tenggardjaja CF et al (2015) Evaluation of patients’ perceptions of mesh usage in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Urology 85(2):326–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2005) The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 12(1):63–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Scott N, Go PM, Graham P, McCormack K, Ross SJ, Grant AM (2001) Open Mesh versus non-Mesh for groin hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. AUGS (2016) Position statement: mesh midurehtral slings for stress urinary incontinence [Online]. https://www.augs.org/assets/1/6/AUGS-SUFU_MUS_Position_Statement.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  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):1155–1160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):191–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  44. SGS (2016) Groups reaffirm position on use of vaginal mesh for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence [Online]. https://www.sgsonline.org/assets/docs/Special_Reports/jointmeshstatement_final%208%2016%2016.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  45. Lucas MG, Berghmans LC et al. (2015) Guidelines on Urinary Incontinence, 2015 edition [Online]. http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/20-Urinary-Incontinence_LR1.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  46. USANZ (2017) Position statement on the use of mid-urethral slings (MUS) in the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) [Online]. https://www.usanz.org.au/uploads/65337/ufiles/Patients__GPs/Attachment_1_USANZ_PositionPaper_MUS_-_Copy.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  47. Care, A.C.o.S.a.Q.i.H (2018) Treatment options for stress urinary incontinence. www.safetyandquality.gov.au. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

  48. Lee D, Zimmern PE (2015) Management of complications of mesh surgery. Curr. Opin. Urol. 25(4):284–291

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. MRHA, M.a.H.P.R.A (2014) A summary of the evidence on the benefits and risks of vaginal mesh implants. 2014 [Online]. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/UCM270402.pdf

  50. Chermansky CJ, Winters JC (2012) Complications of vaginal mesh surgery. Curr. Opin. Urol. 22(4):287–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. MP, T.H.G.H (2019) $2.3 million to improve safety of pelvic floor surgery. MEDIA RELEASE 2019. https://beta.health.gov.au/ministers. Accessed 5 May 2019

  53. AUA. AUA Position Statement on the Use of Vaginal Mesh for the Surgical Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI). [Online]. https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/use-of-vaginal-mesh-for-the-surgical-treatment-of-stress-urinary-incontinence. Accessed 2 Feb 2019

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, 300 Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, 3050, Australia

    Sandra Elmer & Briony Norris

  2. Department of Urology, Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, PO Box 555, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia

    Sandra Elmer

  3. Department of Urology, Bendigo Health, 100 Barnard Street, Bendigo, VIC, 3550, Australia

    Janelle Brennan & Rebecca Mathieson

  4. Bendigo Health Clinical School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Janelle Brennan

  5. Department of Urogynaecology, Royal Women’s Hospital, 20 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia

    Marcus Carey

  6. University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Marcus Carey

  7. Department of Urology, Eastern Health, 5 Arnold Street, Box Hill, VIC, 3128, Australia

    Briony Norris & Caroline Dowling

  8. Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Caroline Dowling

Authors
  1. Sandra Elmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janelle Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Mathieson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Briony Norris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcus Carey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Caroline Dowling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SE: literature review and manuscript writing/editing. JB: data contribution/analysis. RM: data collection. BN: literature review. MC: manuscript editing. CD: manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Elmer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None to declare.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elmer, S., Brennan, J., Mathieson, R. et al. Making surgery safer through adequate communication with the stakeholders: vaginal slings. World J Urol 38, 1351–1358 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02859-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02859-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation