International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 591–598 | Cite as

Lessons from the past: directions for the future

Do new marketed surgical procedures and grafts produce ethical, personal liability, and legal concerns for physicians?
Special Contribution


New procedures and materials for incontinence and prolapse are proliferating rapidly. Surgical procedures were developed by physicians and carried their names, but over the last 15 years, these procedures are developed by industry and bear the trade names of the companies selling the kits needed to perform them. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves devices, not procedures, and does not require submission of efficacy or adverse-event data to gain this approval by the 510-K process. Evidence-based medicine is lacking in the performance of these procedures that may be considered experimental by an insurance company or malpractice carrier with denial of payment or coverage. Physicians and hospitals are exposing themselves to financial, legal, and ethical risks when performing or allowing such procedures to be performed. Informed consent from the patient cannot be obtained. We must not confuse medical marketing with evidence-based medicine.


  1. 1.
    Cornella JL (1996) Urogynecology and urodynamics, theory and practice. In: Ostergard DR, Bent AE (eds) Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 533–554Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pereyra AJ (1959) A simplified surgical procedure for the correction of stress incontinence in women. West J Surg 67:223–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stamey TA (1973) Endoscopic suspension of the vesical neck for urinary incontinence. Surg Gynecol Obstet 136:547–554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gittes RF, Loughlin KR (1987) No-incision pubovaginal suspension for stress incontinence. J Urol 138:568–570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benderev TV (1992) Anchor fixation and other modifications of endoscopic bladder neck suspension. Urology 40:409–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benderev TV (1994) A modified percutaneous outpatient bladder neck suspension system. J Urol 152(6pt2):2316–2320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cornella JL, Pereyra AJ (1990) Historical vignette of Armand J. Pereyra and the modified Pereyra procedure. Int Urogynecol J 1:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mainprize TC, Drutz HP (1988) The Marshall–Marchetti–Krantz procedure: a critical review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 43:724–729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rackley RR, Abdelmalak JB, Medjar S et al (2001) Bone anchor infections in female pelvic reconstructive procedures: a literature review of series and case reports. J Urol 165(6pt1):1975–1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    FitzGerald NP (1999) Pubic osteomyelitis and granuloma after bone anchor placement. Int Urogynecol J 10:346–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pereyra AJ, Lebherz TB (1967) Combined urethrovesical suspension and vaginourethroplasty for correction of urinary stress incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 30:537–546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stamey TA (1980) Endoscopic suspension of the vesical neck for urinary incontinence in females. Report on 203 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 192:465–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kobashi KC, Dmochowski R, Mee SL et al (2000) Erosion of woven polyester pubovaginal sling. J Urol 164:2070–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amundsen CL, Flynn BJ, Webster GD (2003) Urethral erosion after synthetic and nonsynthetic pubovaginal slings: differences in management and continence outcome. J Urol 170:134–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walter A, Magtibay P, Cornella JL (2000) Percutaneous bone anchor sling using synthetic mesh associated with urethral overcorrection and erosion. Int Urogynecol J 11:328–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Owens DC, Winters JC (2004) Pubovaginal sling using Duraderm graft: intermediate follow-up and patient satisfaction. Neurourol Urodyn 23:115–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paraiso MFR, Barber MD, Muir TW et al (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft material. Am J Obstet Gynecol 108:1589–1596Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ward KL, Hilton P et al (2004) A prospective multicenter randomized trial of tension-free vaginal tape and colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence: two-year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:324–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    2005 IUGA grafts roundtable (2006) Int Urogynecol J 17:Suppl 1Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee Opinion, Committee on Ethics (2006) Innovative practice: ethical guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 195:1762–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecology Journal 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, IrvineLong Beach Memorial Medical CenterLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations