Are complications of stress urinary incontinence surgery procedures associated with the position of the sling?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the sling position is associated with particular types of complications in patients undergoing suburethral sling placement for stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: Data from 100 women diagnosed at the Evangelical Hospital Hagen-Haspe with complications after suburethral sling insertion were analyzed. All patients underwent pelvic floor ultrasound to assess: urethral length, sling location in relation to the urethral length (%) and the sling distance to the longitudinal smooth muscle complex of the urethra (the sling-longitudinal smooth muscle distance). RESULTS: The shortest median sling-longitudinal smooth muscle distance was observed in patients with recurrent urinary tract infections, urinary retention and overactive bladder: 0.9, 1.1 and 1.75 mm, respectively (P < 0.05). In women with persistent stress urinary incontinence and sling erosion, the sling-longitudinal smooth muscle distance was 3.6 and 4.6 mm, respectively (P < 0.05). Persistent stress urinary incontinence was connected with the position of the sling in relation to the bladder neck - in these patients, the sling was closer to the bladder neck. CONCLUSIONS: Sling location plays a pivotal role in the occurrence of certain complications. The sling position in the proximal part of the urethra or between the middle and proximal urethra appears to be connected with a high rate of unsuccessful stress urinary incontinence treatment. A sling-longitudinal smooth muscle distance below 2 mm is often connected with sling complications, such as overactive bladder, urinary retention and recurrent urinary tract infections.

Midurethral sling incision: indications and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Controversy continues over the effectiveness of sling incision, which is the most common operative approach to treating complications following suburethral sling insertion. This retrospective analysis assessed the indications for sling incision and patient outcomes regarding resolution of complications and stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: A review was conducted of the medical records of women who underwent sling incision between 2003 and 2010. Data such as surgical indications, ultrasound findings and medical outcomes were extracted from 198 records, and descriptive and inferential statistical methods of analysis were used. RESULTS: In the 198 patients eligible for study inclusion, the primary reasons for sling incision were overactive bladder (68 %), voiding dysfunction (61 %), and recurrent urinary tract infections (53 %). Additional complications included dyspareunia (18 %), chronic pelvic pain (17 %), and sling exposure (15 %). Sling incision led to immediate postoperative cure of voiding dysfunction in 97 % of patients. Cure rates for overactive bladder and dyspareunia were 60 % and 94 % respectively. Chronic pelvic pain was resolved in 82 % of cases and all cases of sling exposure were cured. Eighty-five (61 %) of the 140 patients who were continent before sling incision developed recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that sling incision can be highly successful in improving voiding dysfunction and dyspareunia, and moderately successful in curing overactive bladder and chronic pain. However, SUI may recur in more than 60 % of the patients undergoing sling incision. Consequently, patients being considered for a sling incision procedure should be informed about this possible complication.