Welcome to the CJU website » LOG IN


Pubovaginal bone anchor fixation with polyethylene versus fascia lata slings in the treatment of female stress incontinence: sling material and proces
St. Hedwig Hospital, Teaching Hospital of University Hospital Charit?, De
Apr  2005 (Vol.  12, Issue  2, Pages( 2581 - 2587)


Text-Size + 

  • OBJECTIVE: The opponents of the In-Tacä bone anchor system note the risk of a high rate of wound infection and osteitis pubis. We evaluated whether there is a difference in the outcome of the use of two different sling materials ? polyethylene and fascia lata ? with regard to wound infection, and analyzed the incidence of osteitis pubis further in a larger series.


    A total of 61 women (mean age = 65.4 years) were treated for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) type II and III using the In-Tacä bone anchor system. In 15 of 61 patients, we used a synthetic sling of polyethylene, and in 46, a fascia lata sling. The subjective success rate was determined with validated questionnaires (Urinary Distress Inventory-6, Symptom Severity Index and Symptom Impact Index). The objective assessment included a pad test according to the ICS- standard and a urogynecologic evaluation. Mean follow-up was 10.2 months.


    Wound inflammation of only very mild degree occurred in 15% in the fascia lata group, whereas 33% in the polyethylene group developed serious sling infection; in three patients explantation of the sling was necessary. Accordingly, satisfaction with the procedure was low in the polyethylene group. In both groups, there were no hints of osteitis pubis. The sling material used did not affect continence rate.


    Using the bone anchor system, the infection rate depends primarily on the sling material used and its processing: polyethylene is well tolerated in other reconstructive procedures (such as TVT, where a netlike mesh is used), so the processing of synthetic sling material plays an extremely important role in infection rate: platelike, dense synthetic material tends to cause wound infection.

Current Issue

October 2021, Vol.28 No.5
canadian journal of urology