Management of the Exposed or Perforated Midurethral Sling

Sonography as a Diagnostic Tool in Midurethral Sling Complications: A Narrative Review

Despite the established safety and efficacy of midurethral slings (MUS), which are the current gold standard treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), the potential for postoperative complications remains a significant concern for both healthcare professionals and patients. Meanwhile, sonography has emerged as a significant diagnostic tool in urogynecology, and one of the applications of this imaging modality may be the evaluation of complications arising from MUS procedures. This review, based on a comprehensive literature search, focuses on the use of pelvic floor ultrasound (US) in the context of MUS complications. It includes analyses of randomized controlled trials, prospective, and retrospective studies, covering preoperative and postoperative investigations, to assess complications such as persistent and recurrent SUI, urinary retention and obstructive voiding, de novo urgency/overactive bladder, vaginal exposure, sling erosion, pain, and hematoma. The review critically examines the existing literature, with a particular focus on recent publications. Despite the variability in findings, it appears that for each of the discussed complications, the application of pelvic floor US can significantly support the diagnostic and therapeutic process. The paper also identifies potential future directions for the development of US applications in diagnosing MUS complications.

FIGO recommendations: Use of midurethral slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence

BACKGROUND

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a global problem. It can significantly adversely impact a woman's quality of life. The use of synthetic mesh in vaginal surgery is controversial, especially when used for pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Although negative effects have been reported, the synthetic mesh midurethral sling (MUS) is considered to be safe and effective in the surgical treatment of SUI.

OBJECTIVES

To provide evidence-based data and recommendations for the obstetrician/gynecologist who treats women with SUI and performs or plans to perform MUS procedures.

METHODS

Academic searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar articles published between 1987 and March 2020 were performed by a subgroup of the Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Committee, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).

SELECTION CRITERIA

The obtained scientific data were associated with a level of evidence according to the Oxford University Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and GRADE Working Group system. In the absence of concrete scientific evidence, the recommendations were made via professional consensus.

RESULTS

The FIGO Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Committee reviewed the literature and prepared this evidence-based recommendations document for the use of MUS for women with SUI.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the extensive literature, there is a lack of consensus in the optimal surgical treatment of SUI. These recommendations provide a direction for surgeons to make appropriate decisions regarding management of SUI. The MUS is considered safe and effective in the treatment of SUI, based on many high-quality scientific publications and professional society recommendations. Comprehensive long-term data and systemic reviews are still needed, and these data will become increasingly important as women live longer. These recommendations will be continuously updated through future literature reviews.

Second-Line Surgical Management After Midurethral Sling Failure

Currently, the midurethral sling (MUS) is widely used as a standard treatment in patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Several studies have reported the failure rate of MUS to be approximately 5%–20%. In general, sling failure can be defined as persistent SUI after surgery or a temporary improvement in incontinence followed by recurrence. Failure is also often considered to include cases requiring secondary surgery due to mesh exposure, postoperative voiding difficulty, de novo urgency/urge incontinence, and severe postoperative pain. Because of the lack of large-scale, high-quality research on this topic, no clear guidelines exist for second-line management. To date, transurethral bulking agent injections, tape shortening, repeat MUS, pubovaginal sling (PVS) using autologous fascia, and Burch colposuspension are available options for second-line surgery. Repeat MUS is the most widely used second-line surgical method at present. Bulking agent injections have lower durability and efficacy than other treatments. Tape shortening demonstrates a relatively low success rate, but comparable outcomes if the period from first treatment to relapse is short. In patients with intrinsic sphincter deficiency, PVS and retropubic (RP) MUS can be considered first as second-line management because of their higher success rate than other treatments. When revision or reoperation is required due to prior mesh-related complications, PVS or colposuspension, which is performed without a synthetic mesh, is appropriate for second-line surgery. For patients with detrusor underactivity, a readjustable sling can be a better option because of the high risk of postoperative voiding dysfunction in PVS or RP slings.

What to do after a mid-urethral sling fails

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

After the Food and Drug Administration Public Health Notification in 2011 regarding transvaginal mesh, there has been a decline in the use of mid-urethral slings (MUS). However, they are an effective treatment option for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) with minimal complications. The management of recurrent SUI after sling continues to be debated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Long-term follow-up after primary MUS confirms its efficacy and safety. There remains no level 1 evidence for the best next step after a failed MUS. Preferred treatment strategies include placing a repeat MUS with more recent evidence demonstrating no difference in cure rates between transobturator tape and retropubic approach. Pubovaginal slings (PVS) and urethral bulking agents are also acceptable treatment options. A newer bulking agent, polyacrylamide hydrogel, demonstrated excellent short-term success rates in patients after a failed sling.

SUMMARY

MUS is an effective treatment option for SUI. Patients who develop recurrent urinary incontinence are a heterogeneous population who must be evaluated for detrusor overactivity, misplaced sling, unrecognized ISD. Patients with ISD are more likely to benefit by a PVS. Other patients with demonstrated recurrent SUI will likely do well with a repeat MUS.

Is the anchor matter? A short-term follow-up of the effect of mini-invasive mid urethra sling without anchor for urinary incontinence women

OBJECTIVE

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common disease in aged women, and some of them need surgical correction. Recently, the mid-urethral sling is an accepted surgical approach for SUI. However, complication may occur in this surgery, and some of them are needle-related. Therefore, the needleless system may diminish this-type complication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the feasibility of women with SUI undergoing needleless sling surgery in 2017. Assessments were performed by two independent special urogynecologists before, during and post operation periods. We used a category-time-site-pain code following the International Continence Society and International Urogynecological Association (ICS/IUGA) Complication Classification Code (CCC) guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight women were analyzed. The characteristics of the patients were 66.3 ± 12.8 years old (mean ± standard deviation) of age, 2.8 ± 1.2 of parity, and 25.6 ± 4.2 kg/m² of body mass index. All had history of vaginal delivery for term. The objective cure rate at 2- and 4-week follow-up was 97.4% (n = 37) and 94.7% (n = 36), respectively. The subjective cure rate at 2- and 4-week follow-up was both 89.5% (n = 34). Both objective and subjective cure rates remained constant and similar to the end of 4 weeks. There were 6 patients (15.8%) who had complications according to ICS/IUGA CCC guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This needleless mid-urethral sling procedure seemed to be feasible in the management of women with SUI in this small series and short-term follow-up study, suggesting that a further prospective, randomized, comparative study with other tension-free procedures and mini-sling systems can be conducted.

Management of mid-urethral tape complications: a retrospective study

Background/purpose of the study

Following mid-urethral tape insertion, for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), a proportion of women experience complications such as voiding dysfunction or tape erosion which fail to respond to conservative management approaches. These women thus require further surgical treatment. Our objective was to describe the outcomes of the surgical management of complications in these women.

Methods

This retrospective study describes the results obtained following the surgical management of mid-urethral tape complications. Twenty-nine consecutive women who required mid-urethral tape lysis, loosening or excision for tape-related complications in the period 2007-2017 were included. Primary outcomes were improvement in voiding dysfunction and resolution of pain, while secondary outcomes were evaluation of the recurrence of stress urinary incontinence and patient satisfaction. Patient outcomes were measured using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire.

Results

There were 1459 mid-urethral tape procedures performed in the study period. Twenty-nine women (1.99%) who had revision surgery for tape complication were identified. Interventions included tape loosening or lysis in 19 women and tape excision in ten women. Twenty-three of the 29 patients reported a significant improvement in their symptoms postoperatively. Two women had a recurrence of SUI in the tape excision cohort; all patients following tape loosening or lysis remained continent.

Conclusions

Tape revision surgery is a safe and effective treatment for mid-urethral tape complications with the majority of women maintaining continence following revision. Early intervention and proactive management of complications, by the appropriate specialist, will improve outcomes.