Surgical revision of a tape inserted for urinary stress incontinence may be indicated for pain, or tape exposure or extrusion. This study assesses the clinical outcomes of revision surgery.
A retrospective review of 47 consecutive women who underwent surgical revision for the indications of pain, tape exposure or tape extrusion.
Forty-seven women underwent revision. 29 women (62 %) had initial
... [Show full abstract] tape placement at another institution. Mean interval between placement and revision was 30 months. 39 women (83 %) had an identifiable tape exposure or extrusion with or without pain, while 8 women (17 %) presented with pain alone. 11 (23 %) of the tapes were infected clinically and histologically at revision, 10 of the 11 (90 %) being of a multifilament type. In 23 (49 %) cases, the revision aimed to completely remove the tape. Partial excision 24 (51 %) was reserved for localised exposures or extrusions where infection was not suspected. A concomitant continence procedure was performed in 9(19 %) at the time of tape revision. None of these 9 women has experienced recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) compared with 11 out of 38 women (29 %) requiring further stress incontinence surgery when no continence procedure was performed (Fisher's exact p = 0.092). Eight out of 47 underwent revision surgery for pain with no identifiable exposure or extrusion; pain subsequently resolved in all 8 women.
Excision is an effective treatment for tape exposure and pain whether infection is present or not. Tapes of a multifilament type are strongly associated with infection. When infection is present, complete sling removal is necessary. A concomitant procedure to prevent recurrent SUI should be considered if tape excision is planned and infection is not suspected.
