The Use of Synthetic Materials in Pubovaginal Sling

  • Jong M. Choe


Various authors have reported that a pubovaginal sling is efficacious for correction of all types of female stress incontinence.7 Autologous, cadaver, and synthetic allografts have been utilized as supporting materials. Leach et al16 have suggested that autologous slings decay over time, resulting in recurrent stress incontinence. Badlani et al10 have reported that synthetic materials are more durable in maintaining stable cure rates than autologous slings. Infectious and erosive complications of synthetic materials are well known. Urethral erosion is the most feared complication of synthetic sling surgery, causing many urologie surgeons to shy away from using synthetic biomaterials. However, not all synthetic materials result in equally unfavorable reaction to human host tissues. Various synthetic materials have differing inherent biochemical and surface characteristics that result in different biological outcomes. This chapter will review these characteristics.


Vaginal Wall Stress Incontinence Synthetic Material Pubovaginal Sling Endopelvic Fascia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ahmed MM, Hai MA: Outcomes following polypropylene mesh pubovaginal slings for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol, 161:106, Abstract 397, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Athanassopoulos A, Melekos MD, Speakman M, Perimenis P, Markou S, Barbalias GA: Stamey endoscopic vesical neck suspension in female urinary stress incontinence: results and changes in various urodynamic parameters. Int Urol & Neph, 26:293, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bent AE, Ostergard DR, Zwick-Zaffuto M: Tissue reaction to expanded polytetrafluoroethylene suburethral sling for urinary incontinence: clinical and histologic study. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 169:1198, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergamini TM, McCurry TM, Bernard JD, Hoeg KL, Corpus RA, James BE, et al: Antibiotic efficacy against Staphylococcus epidermidis adherent to vascular grafts. J Surg Res, 60:3, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown GL, Richardson JD, Malangoni MA, Tobin GR, Ackerman D, Polk HC Jr: Comparison of prosthetic materials for abdominal wall reconstruction in the presence of contamination and infection. Ann Surg, 201:705, 1985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bryans FE: Marlex gauze hammock sling operation with Cooper’s ligament attachment in the management of recurrent urinary stress incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 133:292, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaikin DC, Rosenthal J, Blaivas JG: Pubovaginal fascial sling for all types of stress urinary incontinence: long-term analysis. J Urol, 160:1312, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chin YK, Stanton SL: A follow up of silastic sling for genuine stress incontinence. Brit J Obstet & Gynaecol, 102:143, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choe JM, Staskin DR: Gore-Tex patch sling: 7 years later. Urology, 54:641, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corujo M, Badlani GH: The use of synthetic material in the treatment of women with SUI lends strength and durability. Contemp Urol, 11:76, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Das S: Comparative outcomes analysis of laparoscopic colposuspension, abdominal colposuspension and vaginal needle suspension for female urinary incontinence. J Urol, 160:368, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diokno AC, Brock BM, Brown MB: Prevalence of urinary incontinence and urological symptoms in the noninstitutionalized elderly. J Urol, 136:1022, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falconer C, Ekman-Ordeberg G, Malmstrom A, Ulmsten U: Clinical outcome and change in connective tissue metabolism after intravaginal slingplasty in stress incontinent women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 7:133, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gray JH, Henry DA, Forbes M, Germann E, Roberts FJ, Snelling CF: Comparison of silver sulphadiazine 1 per cent, silver sulphadiazine 1 per cent plus chlorhexidine digluconate 0.2 per cent and mafenide acetate 8.5 per cent for topical antibacterial effect infected full skin thickness rat burn wounds. Burns, 17:37, 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gristina AG, Naylor P, Myrvik Q: Infections from biomaterials and implants: a race for the surface. Med Prog Technol, 14:205. 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haab F, Trockman BA, Zimmern PE, Leach GE: Results of pubovaginal sling for the treatment of intrinsic sphincter deficiency determined by questionnaire analysis. J Urol, 158:1738, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hanzal E, Berger E, Koelbl H: Levator ani muscle morphology and recurrent genuine stress incontinence. Obstet & Gynecol, 81:426, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hassouna ME, Ghoniem GM: Long-term outcome and quality of life after modified pubovaginal sling for intrinsic sphincteric deficiency. Urology, 53:287, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henke PK, Bergamini TM, Watson AL, Brittian KR, Powell DW, Peyton, JC: Bacterial products primarily mediate fibroblast inhibition in biomaterial. J Surg Res, 74:17, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horn D, Desautel MG, Lumerman JH, Feraren RE, Badlani GH: Pubovaginal sling using polypropylene mesh and Vesica bone anchors. Urology, 51:708, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hunt TK: Basic principles of wound healing. J Trauma, 30:S122, 1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson-Nurse C, Jenkins DHR: The use of flexible carbon fibre in the repair of experimental large abdominal incisional hernias. Brit J Surg, 67:135, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kobashi KC, Dmochowski R, Mee SL, Mostwin J, Nitti VW, Zimmern PE, et al: Erosion of woven polyester pubovaginal sling. J Urol, 162:2070, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Korman HJ, Sirls LT, Kirkemo AK: Success rate of modified Pereyra bladder neck suspension determined by outcomes analysis. J Urol, 152:1453, 1994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leach GE, Dmochowski RR, Appell RA, Blaivas JG, Hadley HR, Luber KM, et al: Female Stress Urinary Incontinence Clinical Guidelines Panel Summary Report on Surgical Management of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence. J Urol, 158:875, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Litwiller SE, Nelson RS, Fone PD, Kim AB, Stone AR: Vaginal wall sling: long-term outcome analysis of factors contributing to patients satisfaction and surgical success. J Urol, 157:1279, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miklos JR, Kohli N, Lucente V, Saye WB: Site-specific fascial defects in the diagnosis and surgical management of enterocele. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 179:1418, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morgan JE, Farrow GA, Stewart FE: The Marlex sling operation for the treatment of recurrent stress urinary incontinence: a 16-year review. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 151:224, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morgan JE, Heritz DM, Stewart FE, Connolly JC, Farrow GA: The polypropylene pubovaginal sling for the treatment of recurrent stress urinary incontinence. J Urol, 154:1013, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oga M, Sugioka Y, Hobgood CD, Gristina AG, Myrvik QN: Surgical biomaterials and differential colonization by Staphylococcus epidermidis. Biomaterials, 9:285, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Richardson AC, Lyon JB, Williams NL: A new look at pelvic relaxation. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 126:568, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Richardson AC, Edmonds PB, Williams NL: Treatment of stress urinary incontinence due to paravaginal fascial defect. Obstet & Gynecol, 57:357, 1981.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rovner ES, Ginsberg DA, Raz, S: Why anti-incontinence surgery succeeds or fails. Clin. Obstet & Gynecol., 41:719, 1998.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Staskin DR, Choe JM, Breslin DS: The Gore-tex sling procedure for female sphincteric incontinence: indications, technique, and results. World J Urol, 15:295, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Villet R, Fitremann C, Salet-Lizee D, Collard D, Zafiropulo M: A new treatment procedure in stress urinary incontinence (SUI): suburethral prolene sling under local anesthesia. Progr Urol, 8:1080, 1998.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yamada T, Arai G, Masuda H, Tsukamoto T, Nagahama K, Nagamatsu H: The correction of type 2 stress incontinence with a polytetrafluoroethylene patch sling: 5-year mean followup. J Urol, 160:746, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Young SB, Rosenblatt PL, Pingeton DM, Howard AE, Baker SP: The Mersilene mesh suburethral sling: a clinical and urodynamic evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 173:1719, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zoedler D, Boeminghaus H: On indication and techniques of suspension plastic surgery. Z Urol Nephrol, 58:459, 1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zone-of-inhibition testing was done by W.L.Gore & Associates, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jong M. Choe
    • 1
  1. 1.Urodynamics and Continence Center Division of UrologyUniversity of Cincinnati Medical CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations