EURURO Vol. 72 No. 4

593 656

material is low for MUS, exposure rates are also low. A
cautious approach involves urologists and gynaecologists
continuing to prospectively register implants and docu-
ment long-term safety and efficiency. High-quality long-
term data are still sparse. Doctors who offer MUS should at
least counsel their patients that other techniques with
different safety and efficacy profiles exist.
Further work to be carried out by the professional
associations includes ongoing efforts on improving and
harmonising terminology and reporting. Clear guidance on
how to incorporate innovations in clinical practice should
be offered and implemented . When is a new device
sufficiently tested and ready for general use? New
developments in the field should be embraced, but only
released on a wide scale with caution after appropriate
evaluation. For an intervention such as MUS, which is done a
large scale, it is possible to design proper randomised
clinical trials that can demonstrate whether, for instance, a
single incision and MUS is equally effective in clinical
practice.
In conclusion, Fusco et al in their meta-analysis
reconfirm the value of MUS. This statement is based on a
large number of patients (n = 15 855) and trials with at least
60 mo of follow-up. Their review also includes data on
laparoscopic Burch colposuspension At present, many
women with invalidating SUI will regain their quality of life
thanks to MUS. From our side, both physicians and
professional associations should take responsibility for
registering and reporting the safety and efficacy of MUS.
Conflicts of interest: Frank Van der Aa and Dirk De Ridder are proctors for
Boston Scientific. Jan Deprest is a proctor for Johnson & Johnson. The
translational research program of the authors’ group has received
support from FEG Textiltechnik, Ethicon, and Bard, Blasingame & Garrard
Law. These are unconditional grants managed by the Leuven Research
and Development transfer office. The investigators design the protocols,
are owners of the results, and publish these independently of the above.
The laboratory was a recipient of an FP7 grant from the European
Commission (Bip-Upy; NMP3-LA-2012-310389), in which Coloplast is a
partner.
References
[1] Wu JM, Matthews, Catherine A, Conover MM, Pate V, Funk MJ.
Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse.
Obstet Gynecol 2015;123:1201–6.
.
[2] Kurkija¨rvi K, Aaltonen R, Gissler M, Ma¨kinen J. Surgery for stress
urinary incontinence in Finland 1987-2009. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic
Floor Dysfunct 2016;27:1021–7.
.
[3]
.
[4]
.
[5] Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health
Risks. Opinion on the safety of surgical meshes used in urogyne-
cological surgery. European Commission; 2015.
.
[6] Brown J, King J. Age-stratified trends in 20 years of stress inconti-
nence surgery in Australia. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol
2016;56:192–8.
[7] Burkhard FC, Lucas MG, Berghmans LC, et al. EAU guidelines on
urinary incontinence in adults.
.
[8] Ford A, Rogerson L, Cody J, Ogah J. Mid-urethral sling operations for
stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2015;2015:CD006375.
.
[9] Rashid TG, De Ridder D, Van der Aa F. The role of bladder neck
suspension in the era of mid-urethral sling surgery. World J Urol
2015;33:1235–41. .
[10] Slack M, Ostergard D, Cervigni M, Deprest J. A standardized de-
scription of graft-containing meshes and recommended steps be-
fore the introduction of medical devices for prolapse surgery:
consensus of the 2nd IUGA grafts roundtable: optimizing safety
and appropriateness of graft use in transvaginal PE. Int Urogynecol J
Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2012;23(Suppl 1):15–26.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 5 9 2 – 5 9 3 593