Failure or Recurrence after Surgical Treatment: Introduction

  • Tomasz Rechberger
  • Andrzej Paweł Wieczorek


Modern urogynecological reconstructive surgery over the last ten years has been dominated by prosthesetic augmentation of destroyed fascias and ligaments, in order to decrease the percentage of recurrences, which, after classical methods, was unacceptably high. According to epidemiological studies, the percentage of failures after primary classical repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) markedly exceeds 30%, which makes the development of new and more reliable methods imperative [1, 2, 3, 4].


Pelvic Floor Stress Urinary Incontinence Pelvic Organ Prolapse Obstet Gynecol Midurethral Sling 
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.
    Paraiso MFR, Ballard LA, Walters MD et al. Pelvic support defects and visceral and sexual function in women with sacrospinous ligament pelvic reconstruction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:1423–1431.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olsen AL, Smith VG, Bergstrom JO et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:501–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Macer GA. Transabdominal repair of cystocele, a 20 years experience, compared with the traditional vaginal approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978;131:203–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kholi N, Sze EHM, Roat TW, Karram M. Incidence of recurrent cystocele after anterior colporrhaphy with and without concomitant transvaginal needle suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:1476–1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1496–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L, Thiagamoorthy G. The vagina dialogues: Womens expectations of prolapse treatment. Int Urogynecol J 2009;20(suppl 2):S174.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vakili B, Zheng YT, Loesch H et al. Levator contraction strength and genital hiatus as risk factors for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1592–1598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luijendij R. A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernias. N Engl J Med 2000;243:292–298.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer A, Fink T, Zachmann S, Eickenbuch U. Comparison of retropubic and outside-in transobturator sling systems for the cure of female genuine stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 2005;48:799–804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    David-Montefiore E, Frobert JL, Grisard-Anaf M et al. Perioperative complications and pain after suburethral sling procedure for urinary stress incontinence: a French prospective randomized multicenter study comparing the retropubic and transobturator routes. Eur Urol 2006;49:133–138.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spinosa JP, Dubuis PY. Suburethral sling inserted by the transobturator route in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: preliminary results in 117 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005;123:212–217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuuva N, Nilsson CG. A nationwide analysis of complications associated with the tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) procedure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002;81:72–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karram MM, Segal JL, Vassalo BJ, Kleeman SD. Complications and untoward effects of the tension-free vaginal tape procedure. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:929–932.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hammad FT, Kennedy-Smith A, Robinson RG. Erosions and urinary retention following polypropylene synthetic sling: Australasian survey. Eur Urol 2005;47:641–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deval B, Ferchaux J, Berry R et al. Objective and subjective cure rates after transobturator tape (OBTAPE) treatment of female urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 2006;49:373–377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rechberger T, Adamiak A, Miotla P et al. Risk of tape rejection in urogynecological surgeries. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2006;17(suppl. 2):302.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Domingo S, Alama P, Ruiz N et al. Diagnosis, management and prognosis of vaginal erosion after transobturator suburethral tape procedure using a nonwoven thermally bonded polypropylene mesh. J Urol 2005;173:1627–1630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davila GW, Johnson JD, Serels S. Multicenter experience with the Monarc transobturator sling system to treat stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2006;17:460–465.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hodroff MA, Sutherland SE, Kesha JB, Siegel SW. Treatment of stress incontinence with the SPARC sling: intraoperative and early complications of 445 patients. Urology 2005; 66:760–762.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levin I, Groutz A, Gold R et al. Surgical complications and medium-term outcome results of tension-free vaginal tape: a prospective study of 313 consecutive patients. Neurourol Urodyn 2004;23:7–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Delorme E, Droupy S, de Tayrac R, Delmas V. Transobturator tape (Uratape): a new minimally-invasive procedure to treat female urinary incontinence Eur Urol 2004;45:203–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Tayrac R, Deffieux X, Droupy S et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing tension-free vaginal tape and transobturator suburethral tape for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1868–1874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neuman M. TVT and TVT-O obturator: comparison of two operative procedures. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;131:89–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F et al. Tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and intravaginal slingplasty (IVS) for stress urinary incontinence: a multicenter randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:1338–1342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rechberger T, Jankiewicz K, Adamiak A et al. Do preoperative cytokine levels offer a prognostic factor for polypropylene mesh erosion after suburethral sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence? J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009;20:69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Connor RC, Nanigian DK, Lyon MB et al. Early outcomes of mid-urethral slings for female stress urinary incontinence stratified by Valsalva leak point pressure. Neurourol Urodyn 2006;25:685–688.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Giannantoni A et al. Preoperative Valsava leak point pressure may not predict outcome of midurethral slings. Analysis from a randomized controlled trial of retropubic versus transobturator mid-urethral slings. Int Braz J Urol 2008;34:73–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Charalambous S, Touloupidis S, Fatles G et al. Transvaginal vs transobturator approach for synthetic sling placement in patients with stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008;19:357–360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Daraï E, Frobert JL, Grisard-Anaf M et al. Functional results after the suburethral sling procedure for urinary stress incontinence: a prospective randomized multicentre study comparing the retropubic and transobturator routes. Eur Urol 2007;51:795–801.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rechberger T, Futyma K, Jankiewicz K et al. The comparison of the clinical effectiveness of retropubic (IVS-02) and transobturator (IVS-04) midurethral slings — randomized trial. Eur Urol 2009;56:24–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Birch C, Fynes MM. The role of synthetic and biological prostheses in reconstructive pelvic floor surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002;14:527–535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Persson J, Iosif C, Wolner-Hanssen P. Risk factors for rejection of synthetic suburethral slings for stress urinary incontinence: a case-control study. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99: 629–634.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Monif GRG, Thompson JL, Stephens HD, Baer H. Quantitative and qualitative effects of Povidone-iodine liquid and gel on the aerobic and anaerobic flora of the female genital tract. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;137:432–438.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Collinet P, Belot F, Debodinance P et al. Transvaginal mesh technique for pelvic organ prolapse repair: mesh exposure management and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2006;17:315–320.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kahn MA, Stanton SL. Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1997;104:82–86.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR. Sexual function and vaginal anatomy in women before and after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1610–1615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dietz HP. Ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor. Part I: two-dimensional aspects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:80–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dietz HP, Barry C, Lim YN, Rane A. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of suburethral slings. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;26:175–179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Stankiewicz A et al. High-resolution three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasonography in the assessment of pelvic floor anatomy: a preliminary study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009; 20:1213–1222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Digesu GA, Robinson D, Cardozo L, Khullar V. Three-dimensional ultrasound of the urethral sphincter predicts continence surgery outcome. Neurourol Urodyn 2009; 28:90–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wieczorek AP, Wozniak MM, Stankiewicz A et al. The assessment of normal female urethral vascularity with Color Doppler endovaginal ultrasonography: preliminary report. Pelviperineology 2009;28:59–61.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dwyer PL. Evolution of biological and synthetic grafts in reconstructive pelvic surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2006;17(suppl 1):S10–15.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Davila GW. Introduction to the 2005 IUGA Grafts Roundtable. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2006;17(suppl 1):S4–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomasz Rechberger
    • 1
  • Andrzej Paweł Wieczorek
    • 2
  1. 1.2nd Department of GynecologyMedical University of LublinLublinPoland
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric Radiology, Children’s Teaching HospitalMedical University of LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations