Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Sep;12(9):481-509.
doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2015.183. Epub 2015 Aug 18.

Safety considerations for synthetic sling surgery

Affiliations
Review

Safety considerations for synthetic sling surgery

Jerry G Blaivas et al. Nat Rev Urol. 2015 Sep.

Abstract

Implantation of a synthetic midurethral sling (SMUS) is the most commonly performed anti-incontinence operation in women worldwide. The effectiveness of the SMUS is comparable to that of the historical gold standards--autologous fascial slings and the Burch colposuspension. Much controversy, however, has evolved regarding the safety of this type of sling. Overall, the quality of the studies with respect to assessing risks of SMUS-associated complications is currently poor. The most common risks in patients with SMUS include urethral obstruction requiring surgery (2.3% of patients with SMUS), vaginal, bladder and/or urethral erosion requiring surgery (1.8%) and refractory chronic pain (4.1%); these data likely represent the minimum risks. In addition, the failure rate of SMUS implantation surgery is probably at least 5% in patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Furthermore, at least one-third of patients undergoing sling excision surgery develop recurrent SUI. Considering the additional risks of refractory overactive bladder, fistulas and bowel perforations, among others, the overall risk of a negative outcome after SMUS implantation surgery is ≥15%.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Nov;18(11):1331-5 - PubMed
    1. Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Nov;21(11):1337-45 - PubMed
    1. Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Nov;22(11):1395-404 - PubMed
    1. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2008;65(1):41-6 - PubMed
    1. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Oct;19(5):490-5 - PubMed