The Mersilene mesh suburethral sling: a clinical and urodynamic evaluation
Young, Stephen B. ; Rosenblatt, Peter L. ; Pingeton, Diane M. ; Howard, Allison E. ; Baker, Stephen P.
Citations
Student Authors
Faculty Advisor
Academic Program
UMass Chan Affiliations
Document Type
Publication Date
Keywords
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gynecology
Humans
Middle Aged
*Polyethylene Terephthalates
Postoperative Complications
Postoperative Period
*Surgical Mesh
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Urinary Incontinence, Stress
Urination
Urination Disorders
Urodynamics
Life Sciences
Medicine and Health Sciences
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Subject Area
Embargo Expiration Date
Link to Full Text
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to determine the efficacy and safety of the Mersilene (Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, N.J.) mesh sling.
STUDY DESIGN: A total of 110 women diagnosed at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center with recurrent genuine stress incontinence, low-pressure urethra, or chronically increased intraabdominal pressure underwent a Mersilene mesh sling procedure. The women were followed up with yearly clinical and 1-year urodynamic evaluations. Sixty-seven patients had both preoperative and postoperative complete urodynamic evaluations. Paired t test was used except where stated.
RESULTS: Seventy-nine of 83 patients (95%) who were examined at a mean of 15 months reported complete stress continence. Objective cure rate (n = 72) by 1-year postoperative stress test was 93%. The pressure transmission ratio increased from 75% to 112% (p < 0.0001). The mean number of days to normal voiding was 10. Three women have long-term difficulty with retention. Erosion of the vaginal sling site occurred in two women, one of whom required removal (0.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: The suburethral sling with Mersilene mesh is a safe, effective treatment for specific types of genuine stress incontinence on the basis of yearly clinical and 1-year urodynamic follow-up, and it demonstrates a low rejection rate.
Source
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Dec;173(6):1719-25; discussion 1725-6. Link to article on publisher's website