Comparison of retropubic synthetic mid-urethral slings to fascia pubovaginal slings following failed sling surgery

AimsMid-urethral slings are considered first-line surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the use of mid-urethral slings (MUS) for patients who have failed a prior sling procedure. Materials and MethodsAfter receiving IRB approval, a multi-institutional retrospective review of 224 consecutive patients undergoing placement of a retropubic MUS (n=153) or autologous rectus fascia (ARF) pubovaginal sling (n=71) for prior failed sling surgery is conducted. Pre- and post-operative pad use is recorded for all patients in addition to completion of four validated questionnaires pre- and post-operatively: SEAPI-QMM incontinence classification system (stress-related leak, emptying ability, anatomy, protection, inhibition, quality of life, mobility, and mental status), incontinence impact questionnaire (IIQ-7), urogenital distress inventory (UDI-6), and 10-point visual analog score (VAS). ResultsMedian follow-up is 29 months and the overall subjective cure rate was 61.4%. A statistically significant improvement in pad use and in all validated questionnaire outcomes is observed for secondary repair with a retropubic sling. In further sub-analysis between the MUS and the ARF groups, there are no significant differences in subjective cure rates or changes in post-operative questionnaire outcomes. ConclusionsSecondary repair with a retropubic sling is a durable and effective procedure for patients who have failed prior sling procedures without differences in outcomes noted between retropubic MUS and ARF slings. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:851-854, 2016. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.