Current Urology Reports

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 247–252 | Cite as

The Role of Fascial Slings in the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women: A 2013 Update

Female Urology (H Goldman, Section Editor)

Abstract

During the last decade, a variety of commercial innovations in synthetic sling materials have emerged as a result of an evolution in the understanding of the pathophysiology of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and a push to less invasive surgical approaches. The advent of midurethral slings (MUS), with their relative ease of placement, has modernized and become the most commonly used technique for treatment of SUI. Nevertheless, this innovative technology has been associated with complications not previously associated with anti-incontinence procedures. In this article, we review the current literature regarding the use, indications, and efficacy of pubovaginal fascial slings (PVS) in the era of expanding synthetic sling use.

Keywords

Autologous fascial sling Stress urinary incontinence Pubovaginal sling Midurethral sling Synthetic sling use 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Melville JL, Katon W, Delaney K, et al. Urinary incontinence in US women: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:537–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hampel C, Wienhold D, Benken N, et al. Definition of overactive bladder and epidemiology of urinary incontinence. Urology. 1997;50(Suppl 6A):4–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Korn AP, Learman LA. Operations for stress urinary incontinence in the United States, 1988–1992. Urology. 1996;48(4):609–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Waetjen LE, Subak LL, Shen H, et al. Stress urinary incontinence surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(4):671–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Albo ME, Richter HE, Brubaker L, et al. Burch colposuspension versus fascial sling to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(21):2143–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aldridge AH. Transplantation of fascia for relief of urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1942;3:398–411.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaikin DC, Rosenthal J, Blaivas JG. Pubovaginal fascial sling for all types of stress urinary incontinence: long-term analysis. J Urol. 1998;160:1312–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Athanasopoulos A, Gyftopoulos K, McGuire EJ. Efficacy and preoperative prognostic factors of autologous fascia rectus sling for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2011;78(5):1034–8. This article evaluates the efficacy of the autologous fascia rectus sling in treating female stress urinary incontinence.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morgan Jr TO, Westney OL, McGuire EJ. Pubovaginal sling: 4-year outcome analysis and quality of life assessment. J Urol. 2000;163:1845–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guerrero KL, Emery SJ, Wareham K, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing TVT, Pelvicol and autologous fascial slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. BJOG. 2010;117:1493–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wadie BS, Edwan A, Nabeeh AM. Autologous fascial sling vs polypropylene tape at short-term followup: a prospective randomized study. J Urol. 2005;174:990–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cross CA, Cespedes RD, McGuire EJ. Our experience with pubovaginal slings in patients with stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 1998;159(4):1195–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norris JP, Breslin DS, Staskin DR. Use of synthetic material in sling surgery: a minimally invasive approach. J Endourol. 1996;10:227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weinberger MW, Ostergard DR. Long-term clinical and urodynamic evaluation of the polytetrafluorethylene suburethral sling for treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86:92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Webster TM, Gerridzen RG. Urethral erosion following autologous rectus fascial pubovaginal sling. Can J Urol. 2003;10(6):2068–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Handa VL, Stone A. Erosion of a fascial sling into the urethra. Urology. 1999;54(5):923.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    •• Albo ME, Litman HJ, Richter HE, et al. Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network.Treatment success of retropubic and transobturator mid urethral slings at 24 months. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2281–7. The authors report 24-month continence rates, complications and symptom outcomes from the TOMUS trial.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    •• Brubaker L, Norton PA, Albo ME, et al. Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network.Adverse events over two years after retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling surgery: findings from the Trial of Midurethral Slings (TOMUS) study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(5):498. This article describes surgical complications in a large cohort of patients randomized to retropubic or transobturator midurethral slings.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) 2007.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daneshgari F, Kong W, Swartz M. Complications of mid urethral slings: Important outcomes for future clinical trials. J Urol. 2008;180:1890–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    •• Kraus SR, Lemack GE, Sirls LT, et al. Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network. Urodynamic changes associated with successful stress urinary incontinence surgery: is a little tension a good thing? Urology. 2011;78:1257–62. The authors identify urodynamic changes that correlate with successful outcomes after stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    •• Kraus SR, Lemack G, Chai T et al. Comparison of urodynamic changes between autologous fascia pubovaginal sling and synthetic midurethral sling. International Continence Society Meeting. Session 26 Poster number 251: 2012. This manuscript underlines the degree of change in voiding pressure after pubovaginal sling and synthetic midurethral sling. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nager CW, FitzGerald M, Kraus SR, et al. Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network Urodynamic measures do not predict stress continence outcomes after surgery for stress urinary incontinence in selected women. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1470–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Blaivas JG, Chaikin DC. Pubovaginal fascial sling for the treatment of all types of stress urinary incontinence: surgical technique and long-term outcome. Urol Clin North Am. 2011;38(1):7–15. The authors report an update on the surgical technique and long-term outcome of autologous fascial sling in the treatment of women with sphincteric incontinence.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haab F, Trockman BA, Zimmern PE, et al. Results of pubovaginal sling for the treatment of intrinsic sphincteric deficiency determined by questionnaire analysis. J Urol. 1997;158(5):1738–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Buonaguidi A, et al. Tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women with low-pressure urethra. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;122:118–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghezzi F, Serati M, Cromi A, et al. Tension-free vaginal tape for the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence with intrinsic sphincteric deficiency. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(4):335–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Giannantoni A, et al. Preoperative Valsalva leak point pressure may not predict outcome of mid-urethral slings. Analysis from a randomized controlled trial of retropubic versus transobturator mid-urethral slings. Int Braz J Urol. 2008;34(1):73–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    •• Nager CW, Sirls L, Litman HJ, et al. Baseline Urodynamic Predictors of Treatment Failure 1 Year After Mid Urethral Sling Surgery. J Urol. 2011;186(2):597–603. This article reports on baseline urodynamic variables that would predict failure after mid urethral sling surgery.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Faerber GJ. Urethral diverticulectomy and pubovaginal sling for simultaneous treatment of urethral diverticulum and intrinsic sphincter deficiency. Tech Urol. 1998;4:192–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Swierzewski SG, McGuire EJ. Pubovaginal sling for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence complicated by urethral diverticulum. J Urol. 1993;149:1012–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gosalbez R, Castellan M. Defining the role of the bladder-neck sling in the surgical treatment of urinary incontinence in children with neurogenic incontinence. World J Urol. 1998;16(4):285–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Austin PF, Westney OL, Leng WW, et al. Advantages of rectus fascial slings for urinary incontinence in children with neuropathic bladders. J Urol. 2001;165(6 Pt 2):2369–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Erhard MJ, Chancellor MB, Kiilholma PJ, Karasick S, Rivas DA. Functional urethral closure with pubovaginal sling for destroyed female urethra after long-term urethral catheterization. Urology. 1994;43(4):499–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Welk BK, Herschorn S. The autologous fascia pubovaginal sling for complicated female stress incontinence. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012;6(1):36–40. The authors review their contemporary experience with autologous fascia pubovaginal slings (AF-PVS).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of UrologyUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of UrologyUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations