Role of Non-Mesh Grafts in Surgical Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence
https://doi.org/10.24060/2076-3093-2024-14-3-255-263
Abstract
Stress urinary incontinence refers to a multifactorial disease characterized by involuntary urination associated with a sudden increase in intraabdominal pressure. Millions of females around the world suffer from stress incontinence each year. Conservative methods of treatment and physical rehabilitation are considered to be ineffective, thereby driving the need for surgical treatment. Sling surgeries comprise a widely used surgical technique for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence due to their affordability and minimal time investment. Introduction of synthetic polypropylene mesh prostheses in the treatment of stress incontinence made them the most common material. However, the accumulated experience and complications associated with the use of mesh grafts contribute to the recent decline in the popularity of synthetic slings and give rise to the search for and development of alternative materials for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Since the need for treatment of urinary incontinence remains high, fascia autograft surgeries have been proposed, even though they require an additional surgical procedure and expose the patient to complications at the donor site of the graft. In addition, surgeons use allografts and xenografts, and regenerative technology is developing in this field. Considering high social significance of this problem, the present paper is aimed at reviewing the scientific literature concerning grafts for the treatment of stress incontinence.
Keywords
stress urinary incontinence,
autologous fascial sling surgery,
allograft,
xenograft,
biodegradable grafts,
vaginal erosion,
urethral erosion
Supporting agencies: This work was supported by the Bashkir State Medical University Strategic Academic Leadership Program (PRIORITY2030).
About the Authors
A. G. Vardikian
Bashkir State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andranik G. Vardikian — Postgraduate Student, Department of Urology and Oncology
Ufa
A. O. Papoian
Bashkir State Medical University ; Clinic of Bashkir State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anushavan O. Papoian — Urology Unit, Department of Urology and Oncology
Ufa
R. A. Kazikhinurov
Bashkir State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Rustem A. Kazikhinurov — Cand. Sci. (Med.), Assoc. Prof., Department of Urology and Oncology
Ufa
B. I. Shamsov
Bashkir State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Bedil I. Shamsov — Postgraduate Student, Department of Urology and Oncology
Ufa
V. N. Pavlov
Bashkir State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Valentin N. Pavlov — Dr. Sci. (Med.), Prof., Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Department of Urology and Oncology
Ufa
References
1. Gvozdev M.Yu., Baranova E.O. Quality of life, mental health, and sexual disorders assessment in women with urinary incontinence. Consilium Medicum. 2019;21(7):28–30 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26442/20751753.2019.190459
2. Mcguire E.J., Lytton B. Pubovaginal sling procedure for stress incontinence. J Urol. 1978;119:82–4. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)57390-5
3. Mikhelson A.A., Lazukina M.V., Usova E.V., Lukyanova K.D., Frank M.A. Modern views of the diagnostics and treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. 2021;11(1):52–62 (In Russ.).
4. Mathieson R., Kippen R., Manning T., Brennan J. Stress urinary incontinence in the mesh complication era: current Australian trends. BJU Int. 2021;128(1):95–102. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15302
5. Saraswat L., Rehman H., Omar M., Cody J.D., Aluko P., Glazener C.M.A. Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;1:CD001754. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001754.pub5
6. First Do No Harm: the report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. APS group; 2020.
7. Freites J., Stewart F., Omar M.I., Mashayekhi A., Agur W.I. Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;12(12):CD002239. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002239.pub4
8. Kwon J., Kim Y., Kim D.Y. Second-line surgical management after midurethral sling failure. Int Neurourol J. 2021;25(2):111–8. DOI: 10.5213/inj.2040278.139
9. Foss Hansen M., Lose G., Kesmodel U.S., Gradel K.O. Reoperation for urinary incontinence: a nationwide cohort study, 1998–2007. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(2):263.e1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.069
10. Reeves F., Greenwell T. Sling operations for stress urinary incontinence and their historical evolution: autologous, cadaveric, and synthetic slings. In: Martins F.E., Holm H.V., Sandhu J., McCammon K.A. (eds) Female genitourinary and pelvic floor reconstruction. Springer Cham: 2022. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-71112-2_22-1
11. Karlovsky M.E., Kushner L., Badlani G.H. Synthetic biomaterials for pelvic floor reconstruction. Curr Urol Rep. 2005;6(5):376–84. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-005-0057-7
12. Sangster P., Morley R. Biomaterials in urinary incontinence and treatment of their complications. Indian J Urol. 2010;26(2):221–9. DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.65394
13. Sharma J.B., Thariani K., Deoghare M., Kumari R. Autologous fascial slings for surgical management of stress urinary incontinence: a come back. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2021;71(2):106–14. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-020-01408-3
14. Cubuk A., Yanaral F., Sahan A., Ozkaptan O., Savun M., Ayranci A., et al. Modified autologous transobturator tape surgery — a prospective comparison with transobturator tape surgery. Urology. 2020;146:72–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.09.018
15. Çubuk A., Şahan A., Özkaptan O., Dinçer E., Karaaslan O., Sarılar Ö., et al. Impact of autologous transobturator sling surgery on female sexual function: a comparative study with mesh used mid-urethral sling surgeries. Urol Int. 2021;105(9–10):764–70. DOI: 10.1159/000514415
16. Kilinc M.F., Yildiz Y., Hascicek A.M., Doluoglu O.G., Tokat E. Longterm postoperative follow-up results of transobturator autologous rectus fascial sling versus transobturator tension-free vaginal tapes for female stress urinary incontinence: Randomized controlled clinical trial. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41(1):281–9. DOI: 10.1002/nau.24813
17. Linder B.J., Elliott D.S. Autologous transobturator urethral sling placement for female stress urinary incontinence: short-term outcomes. Urology. 2016;93:55–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.03.025
18. Deytrikh A., Downey A.P., Mangera A., Reid S.V. Autologous fascial slings for stress urinary incontinence in patients with neuropathic bladder. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2022;8(1):25. DOI: 10.1038/s41394-022-00493-y
19. Mourad S., Elshawaf H., Ahmed M., Mostafa D.E., Gamal M., Shorbagy A.A. Autologous versus synthetic slings in female stress urinary incontinence: A retrospective study. Arab J Urol. 2018;16(4):397–403. DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2018.05.002
20. Plagakis S., Tse V. The autologous pubovaginal fascial sling: An update in 2019. Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2020;12(1):2–7. DOI: 10.1111/luts.12281
21. Grigoryan B., Kasyan G., Pushkar D. Autologous slings in female stress urinary incontinence treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Urogynecol J. 2024;35:759–73. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-05768-6
22. Dogan S. Comparison of autologous rectus fascia and synthetic sling methods of transobturator mid-urethral sling in urinary stress incontinence. Cureus. 2022;14(3):e23278. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.23278
23. Juma S., Raheem O.A. Solvent-dehydrated dermal allograft (AXIS™) augmented cystocele repair: longitudinal results. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1159–64. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-3245-8
24. Maksyutov R.R., Pavlov V.N., Safiullin R.I., Mustafin A.T. Experience in application of allogeneic tendon graft in the correction of urinary incontinence in women. Zdravookhranenie Bashkortostana. 2005;(S7):69–73 (In Russ.).
25. Iyer S., Seitz M., Tran A., Scalabrin Reis R., Botros C., Lozo S., et al. Anterior colporrhaphy with and without dermal allograft: a randomized control trial with long-term follow-up. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(3):206–12. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000524
26. Cabrales C., Liao B., Able C., Coba G., Farhan B. Allograft pubovaginal slings: a systematic review. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep. 2022;17:257– 62. DOI: 10.1007/s11884-022-00667-2
27. Basok E.K., Yildirim A., Atsu N., Basaran A., Tokuc R. Cadaveric fascia lata versus intravaginal slingplasty for the pubovaginal sling: surgical outcome, overall success and patient satisfaction rates. Urol Int. 2008;80(1):46–51. DOI: 10.1159/000111729
28. Klinge U., Binneboesel M., Kuschel S., Schuessler B. Demands and properties of alloplastic implants for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007;4(3):349–59. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.4.3.349
29. Flynn B.J., Yap W.T. Pubovaginal sling using allograft fascia lata versus autograft fascia for all types of stress urinary incontinence: 2-year minimum followup. J Urol. 2002;167(2 Pt 1):608–12. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-200202000-00034
30. Onur R., Singla A., Kobashi K.C. Comparison of solvent-dehydrated allograft dermis and autograft rectus fascia for pubovaginal sling: questionnaire-based analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(1):45–9. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-007-9210-1
31. Wright E.J., Iselin C.E., Carr L.K., Webster G.D. Pubovaginal sling using cadaveric allograft fascia for the treatment of intrinsic sphincter deficiency. J Urol. 1998;160:759–62. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62779-4
32. Hoover M.L., Karram M., Farley G. Indications and technique for cadaveric fascia lata pubovaginal sling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(3):841. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.12.164
33. Basok E.K., Yildirim A., Atsu N., Basaran A., Tokuc R. Cadaveric fascia lata versus intravaginal slingplasty for the pubovaginal sling: surgi-cal outcome, overall success and patient satisfaction rates. Urol Int. 2008;80(1):46–51. DOI: 10.1159/000111729
34. Brennand E.A., Ugurlucan F.G., Brown H.W., Jeffery S., Campbell P., Grimes C.L., et al. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery challenges on behalf of the collaborative research in pelvic surgery consortium: managing complicated cases: series 5: management of recurrent stress urinary incontinence after midurethral sling exposure. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(9):1747–54. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04385-3
35. MacCraith E., O’Brien F.J., Davis N.F. Biodegradable materials for surgical management of stress urinary incontinence: A narrative review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;259:153–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.02.024
36. Rutner A.B., Levine S.R., Schmaelzle J.F. Processed porcine small intestine submucosa as a graft material for pubovaginal slings: durability and results. Urology. 2003;62(5):805–9. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00664-2
37. Giri S.K., Hickey J.P., Sil D., Mabadeje O., Shaikh F.M., Narasimhulu G., et al. The long-term results of pubovaginal sling surgery using acellular cross linked porcine dermis in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1788–92. discussion 93. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)01023-2
38. Wang C.L., Shen C.J., Lin K.L., Long C.Y. Clinical effects of transobturator tape procedure with porcine small intestine submucosa for female stress urinary incontinence. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2016;32(3):142–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.kjms.2016.02.005
39. Arunkalaivanan A.S., Barrington J.W. Randomized trial of porcine dermal sling (Pelvicol implant) vs. tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) in the surgical treatment of stress incontinence: a questionnaire-based study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14(1):17–23. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-002-1000-9
40. Yashchuk A.G., Musin I.I., Popova E.M., Naflulovich R.A., Zainullina R.M., Imelbaeva A.G. Surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women using a collagen material. Experimental and clinical urology. 2015;4:124–6 (In Russ.).
41. Khan Z.A., Nambiar A., Morley R., Chapple C.R., Emery S.J., Lucas M.G. Long-term follow-up of a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing tension-free vaginal tape, xenograft and autologous fascial slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. BJU Int. 2015;115(6):968–77. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12851
42. Dias F.G.F., de Almeida S.H.M., F?varo W., Latuf P. Filho, Ricetto C.L.Z. Can platelet-rich plasma coating improve polypropylene mesh integration? An immunohistochemical analysis in rabbits. Int Braz J Urol. 2021;47(2):287–94. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.0017 43
43. Chapin K., Khalifa A., Mbimba T., McClellan P., Anderson J., Novitsky Y., et al. In vivo biocompatibility and time-dependent changes in mechanical properties of woven collagen meshes: A comparison to xenograft and synthetic mid-urethral sling materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2019;107(3):479–89. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.34138
44. Seval M.M., Koyuncu K. Current status of stem cell treatments and innovative approaches for stress urinary incontinence. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:1073758. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1073758
45. Mariotti G., Salciccia S., Viscuso P., Bevilacqua G., Casale P., Frisenda M., et al. Regenerative medicine-based treatment of stress urinary incontinence with mesenchymal stem cells: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. 2023;18(3):429–37. DOI: 10.2174/1574888X17666220616100621
Review
For citations:
Vardikian A.G., Papoian A.O., Kazikhinurov R.A., Shamsov B.I., Pavlov V.N. Role of Non-Mesh Grafts in Surgical Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence. Creative surgery and oncology. 2024;14(3):255-263. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24060/2076-3093-2024-14-3-255-263
Views:
309
Email this article 