Long-term risk of complications after mid-urethral sling IVS implantation

Grzegorz Surkont 1  ,  
Clinic of Operative and Oncologic Gynaecology, 1 st Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University, Łódź, Poland
Ann Agric Environ Med 2015;22(1):163–166
Results of short-term evaluation of multifilament microporous midurethral tape IVS differ a great deal. During the first year of implantation, erosions have been observed in 0%–26% of operated women. Long-term observations are rare. They suggest high risk of extrusion and infection even after years of implantation.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate long-term risk of complications after IVS implantation.

Material and Methods:
Between 2001–2005, 72 women were operated on with the use of IVS mid-urethral tape.

Two women had vaginal erosions during the first 3 months after the operation. Twelve women had vaginal erosions, purulent vaginal discharge, with IVS tape sticking out of the abdominal wall or vagina, and abdominal abscess. These complications were diagnosed between 9 months and 6 years after IVS implantation. The patients were operated on vaginally and open abdominally, 1–5 times because of complications after IVS implantation.

In the case of post-IVS complication, as much tape as possible should be excised. Long-term follow up on patients with IVS implantation should be recommended to the centres where IVS tape was used, even to patients after removal of the tape. Risk of erosion, extrusion and infection after midurethral multifilament microporous IVS tape implantation is too high – which is the reason it should no longer be used.

Grzegorz Surkont   
Clinic of Operative and Oncologic Gynaecology, 1 st Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University, Łódź, Poland
1. Iwanowicz-Palus GJ, Stadnicka G, Włoszczak-Szubzda A. Medical and psychosocial factors conditioning development of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Ann Agric Environ Med. 2013; 20(1): 135–139.
2. Ulmsten U, Henriksson L, Johnson P, Varhos G. An ambulatory surgical procedure under local anesthesia for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 1996; 7: 81–85.
3. Ostergard DR. Lessons from the past: directions for the future. Do new marketed surgical procedures and grafts produce ethical, personal liability, and legal concerns for physicians? Int Urogynecol J. 2007; 18: 591–598.
4. Surkont G, Wlaźlak E, Kazimierak W, Dunicz-Sokołowska A, Suzin J. The effects of operative SUI treatment established using Burch colposuspension and IVS tape and evaluated through various urogynecologic tests. Ginekol Pol. 2007; 6: 460–463.
5. Wlaźlak E, Surkont G, Dunicz-Sokołowska A, Kocięba-Gała B, Stetkiewicz T, Suzin J. Burch colposuspensions after unsatisfactory TVT and IVS tension free tapes procedures. Prz Menopauz. 2007; 3(31): 170–172.
6. Glavind K, Sander P. Erosion, defective healing and extrusion after tension-free urethropexy for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2004; 15: 179–182.
7. Baessler K, Hewson AD, Tunn R, Schuessler B, Maher CF. Severe mesh complications following intravaginal slingplasty. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:713–716.
8. Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F, Magatti F, Vigano R, Bertozzi R, 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.
9. Siegel AL, Kim M, Goldstein M, Levey S, Ilbeigi P. High incidence of vaginal mesh extrusion using the intravaginal slingplasty sling. J Urol. 2005; 174:1308–1311.
10. Bafghi A, Benizri EI, Trastour C, Benizri EJ, Michiels JF, Bongain A. Multifilament polypropylene mesh for urinary incontinence: 10 cases of infections requiring removal of the sling. BJOG. 2005; 112:376–378.
11. Bafghi A, Valerio L, Benizri EI, Trastour C, Benizri EJ, Bongain A. Comparison between monofilament and multifilament polypropylene tapes in urinary incontinence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Biol Reprod. 2005; 122: 232–236.
12. Glavind K, Larsen T. Long-term follow-up of intravaginal slingplasty operation for urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2008; 19: 1081–1083.
13. Prien-Larsen JCH, Hemmingsen L. Long-term outcomes of TVT and IVS operations for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: monofilament vs. multifilament polypropylene tape. Int Urogynecol J. 2009; 20: 703–709.
14. Rechberger T, Rzezniczuk K, Skorupski P, Adamiak A, Tomaszewski J, Baranowski W, et al. A randomized comparison between monofilament and multifilament tapes for stress incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2003; 14: 432–436.
15. Lim YN, Muller R, Corstiaans A, Dietz HP, Barry C, Rane A. Suburethral slingplasty evaluation study in North Queensland, Australia: the SUSPEEND trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 45: 52–59.
16. Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dölen I. The multifilament polypropylene tape erosion trouble: tape structure vs. surgical technique. Int Urogynecol J. 2008; 9: 417–420.
17. Klinge U, Junge K, Spellerburg B, Piroth C, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V. Do multifilament allopolastic meshes increase the infection rate? Analysis of the polymeric surface, the bacterial adherence and the in vivo consequences in a rat model. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 63: 765–771.
18. Goldstein HS. Selecting the right mesh. Hernia 1999; 3: 23–26.