Management of mid-urethral tape complications: a retrospective study

  • Ifeoma OffiahEmail author
  • Suneetha Rachaneni
  • Anupreet Dua
Original Article


Background/purpose of the study

Following mid-urethral tape insertion, for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), a proportion of women experience complications such as voiding dysfunction or tape erosion which fail to respond to conservative management approaches. These women thus require further surgical treatment. Our objective was to describe the outcomes of the surgical management of complications in these women.


This retrospective study describes the results obtained following the surgical management of mid-urethral tape complications. Twenty-nine consecutive women who required mid-urethral tape lysis, loosening or excision for tape-related complications in the period 2007–2017 were included. Primary outcomes were improvement in voiding dysfunction and resolution of pain, while secondary outcomes were evaluation of the recurrence of stress urinary incontinence and patient satisfaction. Patient outcomes were measured using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire.


There were 1459 mid-urethral tape procedures performed in the study period. Twenty-nine women (1.99%) who had revision surgery for tape complication were identified. Interventions included tape loosening or lysis in 19 women and tape excision in ten women. Twenty-three of the 29 patients reported a significant improvement in their symptoms postoperatively. Two women had a recurrence of SUI in the tape excision cohort; all patients following tape loosening or lysis remained continent.


Tape revision surgery is a safe and effective treatment for mid-urethral tape complications with the majority of women maintaining continence following revision. Early intervention and proactive management of complications, by the appropriate specialist, will improve outcomes.


Voiding dysfunction Mid-urethral tape procedure Stress urinary incontinence Tape exposure 



The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Suzana Matias, who assisted with the tape lysis data. Dr. Ifeoma Offiah is a NIHR Clinical Lecturer and is thus sponsored by NIHR.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Ifeoma Offiah, Suneetha Rachaneni and Anupreet Dua declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

The study was approved by the Audit, Assurance and Effectiveness Department of the University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust and performed with Good Ethical Standards. Reference Number: CA_2018-19-184. This department has an ethics committee for the approval of studies on humans.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The references should not be more than 10 years old.

Supplementary material

13224_2019_1269_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (99 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 99 kb)


  1. 1.
    Lapitan MCM, Cody JD, Mashayekhi A. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD002912.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fusco F, Abdel-Fattah M, Chapple CR, et al. Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparative data on Colposuspensions, Pubovaginal Slings, and Midurethral tapes in the surgical treatment of female Stress Urinary Incontinence. Eur Urol. 2017;72(4):567–91. Epub 2017 May 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim HG, Park HK, Paick SH, et al. Comparison of effectiveness between tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and trans-obturator tape (TOT) in patients with stress urinary incontinence and intrinsic sphincter deficiency. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5):e0156306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Masata J, Svabik K, Zvara K, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of tension-free vaginal tape obturator (TVT-O) and single-incision tension-free vaginal tape (Ajust) in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: 1-year follow-up randomized trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(10):1497–505. Epub 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Valpas A, Ala-Nissila S, Tomas E, et al. TVT versus laparoscopic mesh colposuspension: 5-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(1):57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biardeau X, Zanaty M, Aoun F, et al. Approach and complications associated with suburethral synthetic slings in women: systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Urol. 2016;26(4):254–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rehman H, Bezerra CA, Bruschini H, et al. Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD001754.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moldovan CP, Marinone ME, Staack A. Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability. Int J Womens Health. 2015;7:227–37.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kociszewski J, Kolben S, Barski D, et al. Complications following tension-free vaginal tapes: accurate diagnosis and complications management. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:538391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drake M. Fundamentals of terminology in lower urinary tract function. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:S13–9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody JD, et al. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD006375.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chevrot A, Droupy S, Coffin G, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of tension free vaginal tape in a historic cohort of 463 women with stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(6):827–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linder BJ, Elliott DS. Synthetic midurethral slings: roles, outcomes and complications. Urol Clin N Am. 2019;46(1):17–30. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abdel-Fattah M, Cao G, Mostafa A. Long-term outcomes for transobturator tension-free vaginal tapes in women with urodynamic mixed urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(4):902–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kokanali MK, Doganay M, Aksakal O, et al. Risk factors for mesh erosion after vaginal sling procedures for urinary incontinence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;177:146–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glusto LL, Zahner PM, Goldman HB. Management of the exposed or perforated midurethral sling. Urol Clin N Am. 2019;46(1):31–40. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramart P, Ackerman AL, Cohen SA, et al. The risk of recurrent urinary incontinence requiring surgery after suburethral sling removal for mesh complications. Urology. 2017;106:203–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrogynaecologyUniversity Hospitals Plymouth NHS TrustPlymouth, DevonEngland, UK
  2. 2.Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS TrustShrewsburyEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations