The use of cadaveric fascia lata in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women

A. Singla

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00415.x

2000-02-01

BJU International

Abstract:The pubovaginal sling procedure has become the gold standard for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. The condition is mainly caused by intrinsic sphincter de®ciency (ISD) and the sling procedure has revolutionized the treatment for ISD. The prevalence of ISD is not fully known, but it appears to be a signi®cant component of incontinence in women. ISD is de®ned as a de®ciency in urethral sphincter function that is unrelated to urethral support. The most common causes are previous incontinence surgery, previous pelvic surgery (radical hysterectomy and abdomino-perineal resection of the rectum), neurological disorders (spina bi®da), urethral mucosal atrophy and radiation. It results in poor urethral mucosal coaptation and severe incontinence on minimal exertion. In a recent literature review on ISD, there was no consensus on its pathophysiology or an objective test for its diagnosis [1]. It is best recognized from the patient's history and a clinical examination, in conjunction with documentation of severe incontinence and a ®xed urethra. Video-urodynamics with the measurement of the Valsalva leak-point pressure (VLPP) plays an important role in the classi®cation and evaluation of patients with SUI [2]. The classi®cation of SUI has evolved over the years, from a more cumbersome system (Type I, II, III) as described by Blaivas and Olsson [3], to an easy and more practical one: (i) Incontinence caused by urethral hypermobility (UH); the presence of rotational descent of the proximal urethra and bladder neck into the vagina. This can be observed clinically or radiographically and the VLPPs are usually high (>100 cmH2O). Both Type I and II of the Blaivas classi®cation are included in this type. (ii) Incontinence caused by ISD; there is no UH, with poor outlet resistance (®xed urethra) and the VLPPs are usually low (<60 cmH2O). Blaivas Type III is synonymous with this type [4]. (iii) Mixed type with elements of both UH and ISD, with VLPPs of 60±100 cmH2O. For management it is helpful to classify SUI depending upon the underlying defect in the continence mechanism, as the goals of surgery would be different. Repositioning of the bladder neck and the proximal urethra by a suspension procedure is the goal in UH, while proximal urethral coaptation by a sling procedure is desired in ISD. Blaivas [5] and others have even suggested that the pubovaginal sling offers the best chance for the long-term cure of SUI from either ISD or UH. At present, the author continues to follow the AUA panel guidelines on the surgical management of female SUI [6]. Sling procedures have been used since the early part of this century, ®rst described by Von Giordano in 1907 (cited in [7]). There have been many modi®cations in the technique but the same concept still holds. Several materials, i.e. muscle, tendon, fascia and other synthetic materials, have been used to construct the sling over the years. Initially, various muscles, including pyramidalis, gracilis, rectus and levator ani, were used to construct a sling [8]. Later, in 1933, Price [9] described the ®rst sling using fascia lata strip. He passed the fascia beneath the urethra from the suprapubic approach and ®xed the ends of the sling to the rectus muscle. Ten years later, Aldridge [10] described a sling constructed from rectus fascia. He sutured the ends of the fascia strips together underneath the urethra to provide urethral compression during coughing and straining. At that time, because the complication rate was high, the procedure did not become popular. In 1978, McGuire and Lytton [11] reintroduced the sling procedure for the treatment of Type III SUI using autologous rectus fascia. A combined abdominal-vaginal approach was described which involved an extensive retropubic dissection. They also reported an 80% overall success rate with their procedure. Later in 1991, Blavais and Jacobs [12] again modi®ed the procedure by using a free fascial strip after completely detaching the strip of rectus fascia instead of leaving one end attached, as Accepted for publication 14 September 1999 BJU International (2000), 85, 264±269