Outcome of surgical management for midurethral sling complications: a multicentre retrospective cohort study
Introduction and hypothesis
Suspension of midurethral sling (MUS) surgery in the UK has led to a call for further evidence regarding long-term morbidity and the efficacy of treatments when mesh complications are encountered. We reviewed how many patients who underwent MUS surgery in Teesside, UK, returned to theatre due to a complication and what the outcomes were following this surgical intervention.
All patients coded to have undergone an MUS procedure between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014 in Teesside were reviewed retrospectively (n = 924). Case notes were analysed for patients who returned to theatre up until December 2017 due to complications related to their original MUS.
Seventy-one of 924 (7.7%) women returned to theatre for some form of surgical intervention. There was a statistically significant difference in return-to-theatre rate between the transobturator and retropubic approach groups (63/661; 9.5%; confidence interval (CI) 7.3–11.8% v 8/263; 3.0%; CI 0.96%, 5.1%, odds ratio (OR) 3.35, p = 0.001); 2.8% (26/924) underwent shortening, reburying, incision or MUS excision; 1.0% (9/924) underwent steroid injection along the MUS tract; 1.7% (16/924) underwent surgical treatment of detrusor overactivity; 3.0% (28/924) required further stress incontinence surgery. The risk of unresolved chronic pain post-MUS surgery following treatment of complications was 0.2% (2/924).
Our results show a reassuringly low rate of mesh removal following MUS surgery. Furthermore, outcomes were good following surgical management of MUS complications. We advocate compulsory registration of all MUS procedures, follow-up data and complications to provide robust long-term evidence for the future.
KeywordsComplication Midurethral sling Mesh Stress incontinence TVT TOT
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
V Kershaw: None.
R Nicholson: None.
P Ballard: None.
A Khunda: Received an educational travel grant from Medtronic plc.
S Puthuraya: None.
E Gouk: None.
- 1.“Scandal” of vaginal mesh removal rates revealed by NHS records. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/15/scandal-of-vaginal-mesh-removal-rates-revealed-by-nhs-records. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 2.More than 800 women sue NHS and manufacturers over vaginal mesh implants. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/more-than-800-women-sue-nhs-and-manufacturers-over-vaginal-mesh-implants. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 3.Mesh Working Group Interim Report. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mesh-wg-interim-rep.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 4.Varley D (2012) Summaries of the safety/adverse effects of vaginal tapes/slings/meshes for stress urinary incontinence and prolapse. 1–72. Available from: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/commsic/documents/websiteresources/con205383.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 7.A summary of the evidence on the benefits and risks of vaginal mesh implants. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/402162/Summary_of_the_evidence_on_the_benefits_and_risks_of_vaginal_mesh_implants.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 8.Mesh Oversight Group Report. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mesh-oversight-group-report.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 9.Opinion on The safety of surgical meshes used in urogynecological surgery. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_049.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 10.Morling JR, McAllister DA, Agur W, et al. Adverse events after first, single, mesh and non-mesh surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Scotland, 1997-2016: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017;389:629–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32572-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Women harmed because vaginal mesh regulation “not fit for purpose.” Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/06/woman-great-harm-due-loopholes-vaginal-mesh-regulation. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 12.Parliamentary debate- surgical mesh implants. Available from: http://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-18/debates/B546B1F1-099F-442C-AD71-0185D1B3F69C/SurgicalMeshImplants. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 13.NHS Improvement Provider bulletin 25 July 2018. Available from: https://improvement.nhs.uk/news-alerts/provider-bulletin-25-july-2018/. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 14.Recommendations of the Mesh Pause Clinical Advisory Group to Medical Directors and Surgical Teams. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/safety-alerts/meshclinicaladvisorygroupcmoadvice.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 15.Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2017;389:381–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31596-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.BSUG- Definition of a Urogynaecologist. Available from: http://www.bsug.org.uk/pages/about/definition-of-urogynaecologist/84. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 18.Long C-Y, Lo T-S, Liu C-M, et al. Lateral excision of tension-free vaginal tape for the treatment of iatrogenic urethral obstruction. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:1270–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000146282.51404.93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Management of vaginal mesh erosion following the tension free vaginal; tape procedure: five years experience at a UK tertiary referral centre. Available from: https://www.ics.org/Abstracts/Publish/105/000763.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
- 28.NICE Guideline 171: Urinary Incontinence in Women. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg171. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.