Comparative Analysis of Performance of Large Language Models in Urogynecology.

IMPORTANCE: Despite growing popularity in medicine, data on large language models in urogynecology are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard on the American Urogynecologic Society self-assessment examination. STUDY DESIGN: The examination features 185 questions with a passing score of 80. We tested 3 models-ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Bard on every question. Dedicated accounts enabled controlled comparisons. Questions with prompts were inputted into each model's interface, and responses were evaluated for correctness, logical reasoning behind answer choice, and sourcing. Data on subcategory, question type, correctness rate, question difficulty, and reference quality were noted. The Fisher exact or χ2 test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Out of 185 questions, GPT-4 answered 61.6% questions correctly compared with 54.6% for GPT-3.5 and 42.7% for Bard. GPT-4 answered all questions, whereas GPT-3.5 and Bard declined to answer 4 and 25 questions, respectively. All models demonstrated logical reasoning in their correct responses. Performance of all large language models was inversely proportional to the difficulty level of the questions. Bard referenced sources 97.5% of the time, more often than GPT-4 (83.3%) and GPT-3.5 (39%). GPT-3.5 cited books and websites, whereas GPT-4 and Bard additionally cited journal articles and society guidelines. Median journal impact factor and number of citations were 3.6 with 20 citations for GPT-4 and 2.6 with 25 citations for Bard. CONCLUSIONS: Although GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 and Bard, none of the models achieved a passing score. Clinicians should use language models cautiously in patient care scenarios until more evidence emerges.

Characteristics associated with composite surgical failure over 5 years of women in a randomized trial of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.

BACKGROUND: Among women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery in the Vaginal hysterectomy with Native Tissue Vault Suspension vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy with Graft Suspension (Study for Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial) trial, sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft (hysteropexy) resulted in a lower composite surgical failure rate than vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension over 5 years. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify factors associated with the rate of surgical failure over 5 years among women undergoing sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension for uterovaginal prolapse. STUDY DESIGN: This planned secondary analysis of a comparative effectiveness trial of 2 transvaginal apical suspensions (NCT01802281) defined surgical failure as either retreatment of prolapse, recurrence of prolapse beyond the hymen, or bothersome prolapse symptoms. Baseline clinical and sociodemographic factors for eligible participants receiving the randomized surgery (N=173) were compared across categories of failure (≤1 year, >1 year, and no failure) with rank-based tests. Factors with adequate prevalence and clinical relevance were assessed for minimally adjusted bivariate associations using piecewise exponential survival models adjusting for randomized apical repair and clinical site. The multivariable model included factors with bivariate P<.2, additional clinically important variables, apical repair, and clinical site. Backward selection determined final retained risk factors (P<.1) with statistical significance evaluated by Bonferroni correction (P<.005). Final factors were assessed for interaction with type of apical repair at P<.1. Association is presented by adjusted hazard ratios and further illustrated by categorization of risk factors. RESULTS: In the final multivariable model, body mass index (increase of 5 kg/m2: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.2; P<.001) and duration of prolapse symptoms (increase of 1 year: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.1; P<.005) were associated with composite surgical failure, where rates of failure were 2.9 and 1.8 times higher in women with obesity and women who are overweight than women who have normal weight and women who are underweight (95% confidence intervals, 1.5-5.8 and 0.9-3.5) and 3.0 times higher in women experiencing >5 years prolapse symptoms than women experiencing ≤5 years prolapse symptoms (95% confidence interval, 1.8-5.0). Sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft had a lower rate of failure than hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0; P=.05). The interaction between symptom duration and apical repair (P=.07) indicated that failure was less likely after hysteropexy than hysterectomy for those with ≤5 years symptom duration (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.9), but not for those with >5 years symptom duration (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5-2.1). CONCLUSION: Obesity and duration of prolapse symptoms have been determined as risk factors associated with surgical failure over 5 years from transvaginal prolapse repair, regardless of approach. Providers and patients should consider these modifiable risk factors when discussing treatment plans for bothersome prolapse.

Defining mechanisms of recurrence following apical prolapse repair based on imaging criteria.

BACKGROUND: Prolapse recurrence after transvaginal surgical repair is common; however, its mechanisms are ill-defined. A thorough understanding of how and why prolapse repairs fail is needed to address their high rate of anatomic recurrence and to develop novel therapies to overcome defined deficiencies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify mechanisms and contributors of anatomic recurrence after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (native tissue repair) vs transvaginal mesh (VM) hysteropexy surgery for uterovaginal prolapse. STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter study was conducted in a subset of participants in a randomized clinical trial by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Overall, 94 women with uterovaginal prolapse treated via native tissue repair (n=48) or VM hysteropexy (n=46) underwent pelvic magnetic resonance imaging at rest, maximal strain, and poststrain rest (recovery) 30 to 42 months after surgery. Participants who desired reoperation before 30 to 42 months were imaged earlier to assess the impact of the index surgery. Using a novel 3-dimensional pelvic coordinate system, coregistered midsagittal images were obtained to assess study outcomes. Magnetic resonance imaging-based anatomic recurrence (failure) was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen. The primary outcome was the mechanism of failure (apical descent vs anterior vaginal wall elongation), including the frequency and site of failure. Secondary outcomes included displacement of the vaginal apex and perineal body and change in the length of the anterior wall, posterior wall, vaginal perimeter, and introitus of the vagina from rest to strain and rest to recovery. Group differences in the mechanism, frequency, and site of failure were assessed using the Fisher exact tests, and secondary outcomes were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Of the 88 participants analyzed, 37 (42%) had recurrent prolapse (VM hysteropexy, 13 of 45 [29%]; native tissue repair, 24 of 43 [56%]). The most common site of failure was the anterior compartment (VM hysteropexy, 38%; native tissue repair, 92%). The primary mechanism of recurrence was apical descent (VM hysteropexy, 85%; native tissue repair, 67%). From rest to strain, failures (vs successes) had greater inferior displacement of the vaginal apex (difference, -12 mm; 95% confidence interval, -19 to -6) and perineal body (difference, -7 mm; 95% confidence interval, -11 to -4) and elongation of the anterior vaginal wall (difference, 12 mm; 95% confidence interval, 8-16) and vaginal introitus (difference, 11 mm; 95% confidence interval, 7-15). CONCLUSION: The primary mechanism of prolapse recurrence following vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension or VM hysteropexy was apical descent. In addition, greater inferior descent of the vaginal apex and perineal body, lengthening of the anterior vaginal wall, and increased size of the vaginal introitus with strain were associated with anatomic failure. Further studies are needed to provide additional insight into the mechanism by which these factors contribute to anatomic failure.

Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension is commonly performed for uterovaginal prolapse. Sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft (vaginal mesh hysteropexy) is an alternative, although in 2019 the Food and Drug Administration removed this mesh product from the United States market. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the efficacy and adverse events of these 2 procedures. STUDY DESIGN: At 9 clinical sites in the United States National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network, 183 postmenopausal women requesting vaginal surgery for symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse were enrolled in a multisite randomized superiority clinical trial, comparing a sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft (hysteropexy) with a vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (hysterectomy). Participants consented to remain masked to treatment assignment for the study duration. Study visits were conducted at 6-month intervals through 60 months. The primary treatment failure composite outcome (retreatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms) was evaluated with survival modeling. Secondary outcomes included complications or adverse events, individual anatomic measures of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification examination, and presence, severity, and impact and bother of prolapse, urinary, bowel, and pain symptoms as measured by validated questionnaires. The 3-year published results suggested better primary outcomes with sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft, but the differences were not statistically significant (P=.06). This study reports the 5-year outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 183 women with a mean age of 66 years were randomized between April 2013 and February 2015; 93 were randomized to hysteropexy and 90 were randomized to hysterectomy. Notably, 175 were included in the trial, and 156 (89%) completed the 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome showed fewer failures for hysteropexy than hysterectomy through 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.94; P=.03), with failure rates of 37% vs 54%, respectively, resulting in a difference of -18% (95% confidence interval, -33% to -3%) at 5 years. With the exception of the Urogenital Distress Inventory, no group differences were demonstrated in patient-reported pelvic floor symptoms, prolapse symptoms, bowel function symptoms, general quality of life, body image, or pelvic pain. At their last visit through 5 years, 70% of participants (129 of 183) reported they remained masked to their treatment with no difference in masking between groups. Adverse events for hysteropexy vs hysterectomy included mesh exposure (8% vs 0%), granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs 12%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs 21%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Among women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery, sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft resulted in a lower composite failure rate than vaginal hysterectomy through 5 years. There were no meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes between groups. Our results suggest that this vaginal mesh hysteropexy procedure should be made available to patients.

Summary: 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence Evidence-Based Surgical Pathway for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to summarize the relevant findings that inform the 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence pathway for surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: We conducted an evidence-based review of the English-language peer-reviewed literature relating to POP surgery published prior to December 2016. Level 1 evidence (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] or systematic reviews of RCTs) was preferred; however, level 2 (poor-quality RCT, prospective cohort studies) or 3 evidence (case series or retrospective studies) has been included if level 1 data were lacking. The committee evaluated the literature and made recommendations based on the Oxford grading system summarized as follows: grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence; grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs; grade C recommendation usually depends on level 3 studies or "majority evidence" from level 2/3 studies or Delphi-processed expert opinion; grade D, "no recommendation possible," would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting. RESULTS: The recommendations from each chapter of the review are presented and serve to inform an evidence-based pathway for the surgical treatment of prolapse. A Web-based interactive application of the pathway is presented. CONCLUSIONS: The 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence pathway on surgery for POP is designed as an adjunct to transparent consultation and consent relating to POP surgery. The final decision regarding surgical intervention can be made only after a shared decision-making process between the patient and the clinician that will evaluate a variety of individual factors that cannot be assessed in the pathway.

Effect of Vaginal Mesh Hysteropexy vs Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension on Treatment Failure in Women With Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension is commonly performed for uterovaginal prolapse. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy is an alternative option. Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy. Design, Setting, Participants: At 9 clinical sites in the US Pelvic Floor Disorders Network, 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse were enrolled in a randomized superiority clinical trial between April 2013 and February 2015. The study was designed for primary analysis when the last randomized participant reached 3 years of follow-up in February 2018. Interventions: Ninety-three women were randomized to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 were randomized to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary treatment failure composite outcome (re-treatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms) was evaluated with survival models. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes and adverse events, and were evaluated with longitudinal models or contingency tables as appropriate. Results: A total of 183 participants (mean age, 66 years) were randomized, 175 were included in the trial, and 169 (97%) completed the 3-year follow-up. The primary outcome was not significantly different among women who underwent hysteropexy vs hysterectomy through 48 months (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.38-1.02]; P = .06; 36-month adjusted failure incidence, 26% vs 38%). Mean (SD) operative time was lower in the hysteropexy group vs the hysterectomy group (111.5 [39.7] min vs 156.7 [43.9] min; difference, -45.2 [95% CI, -57.7 to -32.7]; P = <.001). Adverse events in the hysteropexy vs hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs 7%), granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs 21%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery, vaginal mesh hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension did not result in a significantly lower rate of the composite prolapse outcome after 3 years. However, imprecision in study results precludes a definitive conclusion, and further research is needed to assess whether vaginal mesh hysteropexy is more effective than vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802281.

Concomitant Anterior Repair, Preoperative Prolapse Severity, and Anatomic Prolapse Outcomes After Vaginal Apical Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare anterior and overall prolapse prevalence at 1 year in surgical participants with or without concomitant anterior repair (AR) at the time of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) or uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS). METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of two surgical trials; concomitant AR was performed at surgeon's discretion. Anterior anatomic success was defined as pelvic organ prolapse quantification of prolapse point Ba ≤0 and overall success was defined as pelvic organ prolapse quantification points Ba, Bp, and C ≤0 at 12 months. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent (441/701) of the participants underwent concomitant AR and were older, more often postmenopausal, had previous hysterectomy, and had higher-stage anterior, but not apical prolapse. Anterior anatomic success was marginally but statistically better in the combined group (SSLF and ULS) with concomitant AR (82% vs 80%, P = 0.03). In subanalyses, the improvement in anatomic support with AR was observed only in the SSLF subgroup (81% vs 73%, P = 0.02) and mostly in the SSLF subgroup with higher preoperative stage (74% vs 57%, P = 0.02). Anterior repair did not improve success rates in participants with lower-stage prolapse or undergoing ULS. Overall success rates were similar to anterior anatomic success rates. Participants with higher-stage preoperative anterior prolapse had significantly lower success rates. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of clinical trial data, this analysis suggests an AR should be considered for women with higher-stage prolapse undergoing an SSLF. Preoperative prolapse severity is a strong predictor of poor anatomic outcomes with native tissue vaginal apical surgeries.

Surgery for urinary incontinence in women: Report from the 6th international consultation on incontinence.

Urinary incontinence is a prevalent condition worldwide and causes a tremendous impact on a woman's quality of life. While conservative and non-surgical therapies are options for treatment, surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is common. Options include colposuspension, slings (pubovaginal and midurethral), and periurethral bulking. While evidence supports each of these options in the treatment of SUI, each is associated with various rates of success and unique adverse event profiles. Urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) is initially treated with behavioral modification and pharmacologic means, with surgery reserved for those with refractory symptoms or significant complications from medication use. At present, intravesical onabotulinumtoxinA injections, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, and sacral neurostimulation are all viable options for refractory UUI/overactive bladder. As with surgical interventions for SUI, each of these is, likewise, associated with unique outcomes and adverse event profiles. Herein, we summarize the findings and conclusions from the 6th International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI) regarding surgical treatment of urinary incontinence in women.

The female continence mechanism measured by high resolution manometry: Urethral bulking versus midurethral sling.

AIMS: Traditional technology to characterize urethral pressure changes during dynamic conditions is limited by slow response times or artifact-inducing withdrawal maneuvers. The 8F high-resolution manometry (HRM) catheter (ManoScan™ ESO, Covidien) has advantages of fast response times and the ability to measure urethral pressures along the urethral length without withdrawal. Our objective was to determine static and dynamic maximum urethral closure pressures (MUCPs) and resting functional urethral length (FUL) in women using HRM before and after transurethral bulking and compare results to other women who underwent midurethral sling (MUS). METHODS: We recorded rest, cough, and strain MUCPs and FUL in 24 women before and after transurethral bulking with polydimethylsiloxane (Macroplastique®) using the HRM catheter and compared these changes to HRM values from 26 women who had the same measures before and after MUS. RESULTS: At rest, MUCPs increased minimally after both urethral bulking and MUS (3 vs 0.4 cm H2 O respectively, P = 0.4). Under dynamic conditions there were statistically insignificant small increases in MUCP and these increases were markedly less than after MUS (cough: 1.5 vs 63.8 cm H2 O, P < 0.001 and strain: 11.5 vs 57.7 cm H2 O, P < 0.001). FUL increased by 0.5 cm after transurethral bulking (P = 0.003), and decreased by 0.25 cm after MUS placement (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The mechanism of continence after urethral bulking differs from MUS. While MUS increases dynamic MUCP, bulking may rely on increasing the length of the continence zone.

Measuring the impact of a posterior compartment procedure on symptoms of obstructed defecation and posterior vaginal compartment anatomy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that there would be a significant difference in changes in obstructed defecation symptoms and posterior compartment prolapse between women who underwent posterior vaginal wall prolapse repair (PR) and those who did not. METHODS: This was a two-site prospective cohort study of women undergoing prolapse or incontinence surgery in which a PR was, or was not, performed at the discretion of the surgeon. Women were assessed using validated obstructed defecation questionnaires and standardized examination measures (including POP-Q, measurement of transverse gh, and assessment for a rectovaginal pocket and laxity) prior to pelvic surgery and 12 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Of 68 women who underwent surgery, 43 had PR. The PR group had higher obstructed defecation symptoms and greater posterior compartment prolapse at baseline. At 12 weeks, obstructed defecation symptoms had improved significantly more in the PR group than in the no PR group (all p < 0.03). Anatomic outcomes showed greater improvement in point Bp in the PR group (-3.4 vs. -0.7 no PR, p < 0.001) and resolution of the rectovaginal pocket (86 % vs. 42 %, p = 0.002). There were no significant changes in obstructed defecation symptoms or anatomic outcomes from baseline in the no PR group, while the PR group showed significantly improved obstructed defecation symptoms and anatomic outcomes after repair (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements in obstructed defecation symptoms and posterior compartment prolapse were seen after PR, but not in women who did not receive PR. Obstructed defecation symptoms, Bp and rectovaginal pocket were the measures best able to demonstrate improvement after PR. We recommend the use of these measures to assess the impact of surgery in the posterior compartment.

The Design of a Randomized Trial of Vaginal Surgery for Uterovaginal Prolapse: Vaginal Hysterectomy With Native Tissue Vault Suspension Versus Mesh Hysteropexy Suspension (The Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial).

OBJECTIVES: We present the rationale for and design of a randomized controlled superiority trial comparing 2 vaginal surgical approaches for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. The Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial (SUPeR) trial compares the efficacy and safety of native tissue repair with vaginal hysterectomy and suture apical suspension versus uterine conservation with mesh hysteropexy through 36 to 60 months postoperatively for primary repair of uterovaginal prolapse. METHODS: The selection of the primary outcome measure, timing of randomization, patient and evaluator masking to surgical intervention, collection and adjudication of adverse events, cost effectiveness evaluations, partnering with industry, and surgeon certification of competency to perform the 2 procedures is described. A composite primary outcome of success defined as no prolapse symptoms, no objective prolapse beyond the hymen, and no retreatment of prolapse, with a minimum of 36 months postsurgery follow-up using survival analyses is planned. Secondary outcomes measured at baseline and every 6 months postsurgery include validated condition-specific and general quality of life assessments, global impression of improvement, body image, and sexual function measures. Unique challenges during the trial design include maintenance of patient masking to the intervention with routine gynecologic health maintenance and maintenance of evaluator masking. RESULTS: Recruitment and randomization of 180 participants is complete, and participants are currently in the follow-up phase. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide information to help surgeons counsel patients and contribute evidence-based information regarding risks and benefits of 2 approaches for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse.

Preoperative Urodynamic Parameters (Valsalva Leak Point Pressure and Maximum Urethral Closure Pressure), Urinary Collagen and Plasma Vitamin D Levels as Predictors of Mid Urethral Sling Surgery Outcome.

PURPOSE: To determine the best predictor of the mid urethral sling outcome we calculated the AUC of ROC curves of preoperative parameters, including Valsalva leak point pressure, maximum urethral closure pressure, urinary NTx (N-telopeptide of crosslinked type I collagen) and plasma vitamin D values (D2, D3 and D2 plus D3). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an ancillary study of TOMUS (Trial of Mid-urethral Slings) and the ValUE (Value of Urodynamics Evaluation) trial in which subjects underwent mid urethral sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Valsalva leak point pressure and maximum urethral closure pressure were measured in 427 subjects, whereas NTx, vitamin D2, vitamin D3 and vitamin D2 plus D3 levels were obtained from 150, 116, 115 and 116 subjects respectively. Outcome success was defined using identical outcome (subjective and objective) variables for all subjects. ROC curves with corresponding AUC values were compared. RESULTS: TOMUS and ValUE subjects were significantly different in age, body mass index, UDI (Urogenital Distress Inventory) scores. TOMUS subjects had a lower surgical success rate compared to ValUE subjects (66.3% vs 76.0%, p = 0.03). The AUC values of Valsalva leak point pressure, maximum urethral closure pressure, NTx, and vitamins D2, D3 and D2 plus D3 were 0.542, 0.561, 0.702, 0.627, 0.645 and 0.640, respectively. The AUC of NTx was significantly higher than the AUCs of Valsalva leak point pressure and maximum urethral closure pressure (p = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary NTx was the best predictor of the mid urethral sling outcome. This test is not only noninvasive, it is also modifiable. Finding ideal modifiable risk factors prior to mid urethral sling surgery should be subject to future investigations.

Midurethral slings: evidence-based medicine vs the medicolegal system.

Midurethral sling procedures are minimally invasive surgeries for stress urinary incontinence that use a trocar system to place a narrow ribbon of polypropylene mesh under the midurethra. The peer-reviewed scientific literature on these procedures is abundant and midurethral slings are the most well-studied incontinence procedure ever. Systematic reviews of the literature demonstrate that midurethral slings are safer and more (or equally) effective as traditional procedures. The midurethral sling is the worldwide standard for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and >3 million procedures have been performed. The Food and Drug Administration and international scientific review agencies have consistently differentiated transvaginal mesh for stress urinary incontinence from transvaginal mesh for prolapse. In the recruitment of patients to participate in transvaginal mesh litigation, plaintiff lawyers have not made the distinction between stress urinary incontinence and prolapse procedures because more women have received midurethral slings than transvaginal mesh for prolapse by an order of magnitude. The litigation costs of defending their products have forced several companies that manufactured midurethral slings to leave the marketplace. It is not inconceivable that midurethral slings could become absent from the US market. If that happens, then US women with stress urinary incontinence will be harmed because they will not have access in this country to the best and safest stress urinary incontinence surgical procedure ever developed. It may be time for the Institute of Medicine or another comparable national agency to provide evidence-based recommendations on the midurethral sling.