International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 3–15 | Cite as

An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery

  • Bernard T. Haylen
  • Robert M. Freeman
  • Steven E. Swift
  • Michel Cosson
  • G. Willy Davila
  • Jan Deprest
  • Peter L. Dwyer
  • Brigitte Fatton
  • Ervin Kocjancic
  • Joseph Lee
  • Chris Maher
  • Eckhard Petri
  • Diaa E. Rizk
  • Peter K. Sand
  • Gabriel N. Schaer
  • Ralph J. Webb
Special Contribution

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

A terminology and standardized classification has yet to be developed for those complications arising directly from the insertion of synthetic (prostheses) and biological (grafts) materials in female pelvic floor surgery.

Methods

This report on the above terminology and classification combines the input of members of the Standardization and Terminology Committees of two International Organizations, the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) and the International Continence Society (ICS) and a Joint IUGA/ICS Working Group on Complications Terminology, assisted at intervals by many expert external referees. An extensive process of 11 rounds of internal and external review took place with exhaustive examination of each aspect of the terminology and classification. Decision-making was by collective opinion (consensus).

Results

A terminology and classification of complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery has been developed, with the classification based on category (C), time (T) and site (S) classes and divisions, that should encompass all conceivable scenarios for describing insertion complications and healing abnormalities. The CTS code for each complication, involving three (or four) letters and three numerals, is likely to be very suitable for any surgical audit or registry, particularly one that is procedure-specific. Users of the classification have been assisted by case examples, colour charts and online aids (www.icsoffice.org/complication).

Conclusions

A consensus-based terminology and classification report for prosthess and grafts complications in female pelvic floor surgery has been produced, aimed at being a significant aid to clinical practice and research.

Keywords

Classification Complication Prosthesis Mesh Graft Female pelvic floor surgery 

References

  1. 1.
    Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (2006) Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995). Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dwyer PL (2006) Evolution of biological and synthetic grafts in reconstructive pelvic surgery. Int Urogynecol J 17:S10–S15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duncan HJ, Nurse DE, Mundy AR (1992) Role of the artificial urinary sphincter in the treatment of stress incontinence in women. Br J Urol 69:141–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aldridge AH (1942) Transplantation of fascia for relief of urinary stress incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 44:398Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stamey TA (1973) Endoscopic suspension of the vesical neck for urinary incontinence. Surg Gynecol Obstet 136:547–554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ulmsten UJ, Johnson P, Rezapour M (1999) A three-year follow-up of tension-free vaginal tape for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:345–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Delorme E, Droupy S, de Tayrac R, Delmas V (2004) Transobturator tape (Urotape). A new minimally invasive procedure to treat female urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 45:203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amid P (1997) Classification of biomaterials and their relative complications in an abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosch R, Junge K, Hölzl F et al (2004) How to construct a mesh. In: Schumpelick V, Nyhus LM (eds) Meshes: benefits and risks. Springer, Berlin, pp 179–184Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deprest J, Zheng F, Konstantinovic M et al (2006) The biology behind fascial defects and the use of implants in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J 17:S16–S25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davila GW (2006) Introduction to the 2005 IUGA Grafts Roundtable. Int Urogynecol J 17:S4–S5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haylen BT, De Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, Monga A, Petri E, Rizk DE, Sand PK, Schaer GN (2010). An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/ International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21:5–26 and Neurourol Urodyn 29:4–20Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simonds RJ, Homberg SD, Hurwitz RL (1992) Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 from seronegative organ tissue donor. N Engl J Med 326:726–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard T. Haylen
    • 1
    • 17
  • Robert M. Freeman
    • 2
  • Steven E. Swift
    • 3
  • Michel Cosson
    • 4
  • G. Willy Davila
    • 5
  • Jan Deprest
    • 6
  • Peter L. Dwyer
    • 7
  • Brigitte Fatton
    • 8
  • Ervin Kocjancic
    • 9
  • Joseph Lee
    • 10
  • Chris Maher
    • 11
  • Eckhard Petri
    • 12
  • Diaa E. Rizk
    • 13
  • Peter K. Sand
    • 14
  • Gabriel N. Schaer
    • 15
  • Ralph J. Webb
    • 16
  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Derriford HospitalPlymouthUK
  3. 3.Medical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  4. 4.University HospitalLilleFrance
  5. 5.Cleveland ClinicWestonUSA
  6. 6.University Hospital, UZ LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  7. 7.Mercy HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  8. 8.University HospitalClermont-FerrandFrance
  9. 9.Department of UrologyUniversity of IllinoisChicagoUSA
  10. 10.Monash HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  11. 11.Wesley HospitalBrisbaneAustralia
  12. 12.Urogynaecology DepartmentUniversity of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  13. 13.Ain Shams UniversityCairoEgypt
  14. 14.Evanston Continence CentreEvanstonUSA
  15. 15.KantonsspitalAarauSwitzerland
  16. 16.Norfolk & Norwich University HospitalNorfolkUK
  17. 17.St Vincent’s ClinicDarlinghurstAustralia

Personalised recommendations