Back to Search Results

Surgical Management of Stress Urinary Incontinence

1/1/2016 - Anitra D. Beasley MD, MPH

Mentor: Laurie S. Swaim MD

Editor: Christopher M. Zahn, MD

 

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI), defined as involuntary leakage of urine during coughing, laughing, sneezing, or physical activity, affects 35% of all women.  Bothersome SUI can be managed surgically or non-surgically.  Because SUI surgery is associated with operative morbidity, post-procedure voiding difficulty, and development of worsening urge incontinence, surgical intervention is traditionally reserved for patients whose symptoms persist despite conservative therapy.

Anti-incontinence procedures are classified as slings, retropubic urethropexy procedures, or artificial sphincters.  The National Institute for Health Care and Excellence considers synthetic midurethral slings, retropubic urethropexy (colposuspension), and autologous rectus fascial slings as first-line surgical therapy.  Selection of a surgical approach depends on many factors, including the need for an abdominal procedure for other pelvic disease, concomitant pelvic organ prolapse, and the health status of the patient.  The most current evidence supports using a vaginal approach when possible.  Artificial sphincters are procedures of last resort and should not be used unless the patient has failed previous surgical interventions.    

Before midurethral slings, the surgeries of choice were retropubic urethropexy procedures, with either the Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz (MMK) procedure, Burch procedure, or a pubovaginal bladder neck sling.  Both the MMK and Burch are performed via a suprapubic approach and are designed to limit the mobility of the pubocervical fascia.  Burch procedures achieve this support with periurethral sutures to the iliopectineal, or Cooper’s, ligament and MMK procedures to the pubic periosteum.  Because of the rare but serious complication of osteitis pubis, the MMK procedure is rarely performed. 

Midurethral vaginal tape slings with permanent mesh are as effective as retropubic colposuspension and bladder neck slings but have a shorter operative time and a lower risk for most postoperative complications.  They are now the most commonly used surgical procedure for stress incontinence.  The retropubic tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and transobturator tape (TOT) midurethral slings have similar success rates but different risk profiles.  In general, the most common complications are pain, vaginal mesh erosion, infection, recurrent incontinence, dyspareunia, bleeding, organ perforation, neuromuscular problems, and vaginal scarring.  When compared to the transobturator approach, a retropubic approach is associated with a higher risk of bladder and vaginal perforation, vascular injury, and voiding dysfunction, but TOT is associated with a higher risk of groin pain compared to the retropubic approach. Although controversy exists about the role of synthetic mesh used in the vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse, there are substantial safety and efficacy data that support the role of synthetic mesh midurethral slings as a primary surgical treatment option for stress urinary incontinence in women.

Autologous fascia slings may be considered in patients who decline synthetic materials, have severe SUI and a nonmobile, fixed urethra, are undergoing urethral reconstruction, or who have complications from prior mesh.  Rectus fascia or fascia lata slings perform as well or better than their midurethral counterparts but also have higher complication rates.  Single incision mini-slings are gaining popularity and were developed to shorten operative time and move the midurethral sling procedure into the ambulatory setting.  They follow the basic procedure for a midurethral sling, but use an anchor system rather than tissue resistance for support.  Compared to midurethral slings, minislings have lower success rates, lower patient satisfaction, and higher reoperation rates.

Further reading:

 Initial approval: November 2015; Revised May 2017. Reaffirmed November 2018

 

********** Notice Regarding Use ************

The Foundation for Exxcellence in Women’s Health, Inc (“Foundation”) is committed to accuracy and will review and validate all Pearls on an ongoing basis to reflect current practice.

This document is designed to aid practitioners in providing appropriate obstetric and gynecologic care. Recommendations are derived from major society guidelines and high quality evidence when available, supplemented by the opinion of the author and editorial board when necessary. It should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed.

Variations in practice may be warranted when, in the reasonable judgment of the treating clinician, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources, or advances in knowledge or technology. The Foundation reviews the articles regularly; however, its publications may not reflect the most recent evidence. While we make every effort to present accurate and reliable information, this publication is provided “as is” without any warranty of accuracy, reliability, or otherwise, either express or implied. The Foundation does not guarantee, warrant, or endorse the products or services of any firm, organization, or person. Neither the Foundation, the ABOG, SASGOG nor their respective officers, directors, members, employees, or agents will be liable for any loss, damage, or claim with respect to any liabilities, including direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages, incurred in connection with this publication or reliance on the information presented.

Copyright 2018 The Foundation for Exxcellence in Women's Health, Inc. All rights reserved.  No re-print, duplication or posting allowed without prior written consent.

Back to Search Results