Skip to main content

Retropubic Mid-Urethral Sling

The retropubic mid-urethral sling (RMUS, TVT) is the classic synthetic sling for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). A type I macroporous monofilament polypropylene tape is placed under the midurethra and passed through the retropubic space to two small suprapubic exit sites.[1][2][3]

For shared counseling across all midurethral sling types, see Female Slings & Suspensions. For anatomy, see The Retropubic Space and Female Urethra. For the introduction of TVT, see the History of Prolapse Surgery & Urogynecology.

Indications​

NICE NG123 includes a retropubic mesh sling among the choices for women whose non-surgical management has failed (alongside colposuspension and an autologous rectus fascial sling), and asks surgeons to counsel that the sling is a permanent implant that may not be completely removable and to use type 1 macroporous polypropylene.[10]

ScenarioWhy RMUS fits
Hypermobility-predominant SUIRestores a midurethral backstop at the functional support zone
Intrinsic sphincter deficiency concernMay be favored over transobturator tape in selected ISD: in a 164-woman RCT with urodynamic ISD, repeat surgery for SUI by 3 years was needed in 1.4% (1/72) after retropubic tape versus 20% (15/75) after transobturator tape (RR 15, 95% CI 2-113). A fixed immobile urethra still warrants discussion of autologous pubovaginal sling.[4][9]
Need for strongest long-term evidence baseTOMUS, Cochrane reviews, and large cohorts anchor most long-term counseling[2][3][5]
Avoidance of obturator-groin pain riskDoes not traverse the obturator compartment

Relative reasons to choose another option include hostile retropubic anatomy, major prior retropubic surgery, high concern for bladder perforation or retropubic bleeding, inability to tolerate transient retention, or patient preference for a non-mesh operation. AUA/SUFU says clinicians should not use synthetic MUS when SUI surgery accompanies urethral diverticulectomy, urethrovaginal fistula repair, or urethral mesh excision , and should strongly consider avoiding mesh in patients at risk for poor wound healing after radiation therapy, with significant scarring, or with poor tissue quality .[4]

Mechanism​

The RMUS is a tension-free support operation, not a constricting operation. During stress events, the urethra compresses against the tape. Over the first postoperative weeks, tissue ingrowth through the polypropylene pores fixes the tape in place.[1][6]

The retropubic route creates a more vertical U-shaped vector than the transobturator route. This is a proposed explanation for some route-specific outcomes. Retropubic passage carries higher bladder-injury and voiding-dysfunction risk.[2][3]

Tape compression at the midurethra can improve stress leakage without necessarily correcting proximal urethral hypermobility.[11] In a prospective cohort of 191 women followed for up to 36 months, postoperative bladder-neck hypermobility on introital ultrasound was associated with a lower risk of therapeutic failure, and women with therapeutic failure or secondary cure had significantly lower postoperative bladder-neck mobility than women with primary cure.[12]

Technique​

Bottom-to-top TVT​

NICE NG123 advises limiting top-down retropubic mesh sling insertion to a clinical trial; the EAU 2026 evidence summary associates top-to-bottom passage with more postoperative voiding dysfunction (level 1b).[8][10]

  1. Place the patient in dorsal lithotomy and insert a Foley catheter.
  2. Mark two suprapubic exit sites just above the pubic symphysis, lateral to midline.
  3. Make a small midline vaginal incision over the midurethra, about 1 cm proximal to the external meatus.
  4. Develop bilateral paraurethral tunnels toward the inferior pubic ramus and endopelvic fascia.
  5. For the GYNECARE TVT EXACT system, drain the bladder and use the rigid catheter guide to displace the bladder, bladder neck, and urethra contralaterally before each trocar pass. Pass the trocar through the retropubic space close to the posterior pubic bone toward the IFU-specified suprapubic exit site.[18]
  6. Bring the trocar out through the suprapubic skin incision and repeat contralaterally.
  7. Perform cystoscopy after trocar passage. One chapter author's approach fills the bladder with at least 300 mL and inspects the entire surface with 30- and 70-degree lenses, with particular attention to the dome, then inspects the urethra as the scope is withdrawn; if perforation is seen, the needle is withdrawn, correctly repassed, and a catheter is left for at least 5 to 7 days. The catheter interval is one chapter author's recommendation, to be reconciled with injury-specific management.[13]
  8. Adjust the tape with a spacer between tape and urethra so the sling lies flat and tension-free.[14] A #13 Hegar dilator has been described as one example spacer; it is not a required instrument.[14]
  9. Remove the plastic sheaths, trim excess tape at the skin, and close vaginal and suprapubic incisions. Assess postoperative voiding and post-void residual; provide temporary bladder drainage if emptying is inadequate.[8]

Technical rules​

  • Hug the posterior pubic bone during trocar passage.
  • Avoid lateral deviation, which increases vascular and visceral risk.
  • AUA/SUFU advises intraoperative cystoscopy after retropubic sling passage to check for bladder or urethral injury; bladder perforation is a recognized complication of retropubic passage.[4]
  • Do not cinch the tape. If postoperative voiding dysfunction occurs, evaluate for bladder outlet obstruction and detrusor underactivity rather than assuming excessive tape tension.[8]

Outcomes​

Outcome percentages depend on the definition and follow-up time. In TOMUS, the 12-month objective composite was 80.8% with RMUS versus 77.7% with TMUS and met the prespecified equivalence criterion.[3] The subjective composite was 62.2% versus 55.8%: not statistically different, but not proven equivalent by the trial's prespecified margin.[3] Across Cochrane trials, retropubic subjective cure ranged from 71–97% short term and 51–88% beyond 5 years; the wide ranges reflect varied definitions and studies, with less certain long-term route comparisons.[2][3]

At a mean 10.9 years, 1,022/1,535 (66.6%) retropubic and 479/837 (57.2%) transobturator respondents in a Swedish register cohort reported no SUI. Repeat incontinence surgery was reported by 85/1,505 (5.6%) versus 74/814 (9.1%). Of 4,894 identified women, 2,421 entered the analysis; responders differed from nonresponders.[20]

For long-term durability, a prospective cohort of 90 women treated with TVT at three Nordic centers was followed for 17 years. Of the potentially assessable women, 58/74 (78%) were evaluated by clinic visit (46) or telephone interview (12); among clinic attendees, 42/46 (91.3%) had a negative cough stress test, while 48/55 respondents (87.2%) reported being cured or significantly improved. Among the 46 women examined in clinic, one minimal, asymptomatic tape exposure was found and no other tape effects were detected.[17]

OutcomeRMUS counseling point
EfficacyTOMUS demonstrated 12-month objective equivalence, but not prespecified subjective equivalence; a broader network review ranked RMUS above TMUS near 12 months, while longer-term comparative certainty is lower. EAU 2026 rates retropubic and transobturator patient-reported outcomes as equivalent at 1 year (level 1a) and retropubic cure as higher in the longer term (level 1b), and strongly recommends telling women that long-term outcomes are superior with the retropubic route[2][3][7][8]
Bladder perforation5.0% (15/298) in TOMUS and about 4.5% in the Cochrane pooled comparison, much higher than TMUS; trocar injuries were recognized and repassed in TOMUS. EAU 2026 lists higher bladder perforation and voiding dysfunction with the retropubic route (level 1a) and strongly recommends cystoscopy after synthetic MUS insertion[2][3][8]
Voiding dysfunctionMore common than TMUS; usually transient, but persistent obstruction may require sling loosening or simple sling incision.[10] See urethrolysis for further operative management. In TOMUS, voiding dysfunction requiring surgery, catheter use, or both occurred in 8/298 (2.7%) RMUS patients versus 0/299 TMUS patients during the first 12 months[2][3]
Groin / thigh painLess common than TMUS because the obturator compartment is avoided[2][3]
Mesh exposureSimilar to other full-length MUS routes in pooled comparative reviews[2]
Mesh removalIn an English national cohort of 95,057 women, the estimated 9-year removal risk was 3.6% after retropubic versus 2.7% after transobturator insertion.[5]

Massive retropubic hematoma may have life-threatening consequences. In a retrospective series, 7 massive hematomas occurred among 2,091 retropubic MUS procedures (0.33%); six became symptomatic within 24 hours, mean hemoglobin fell 5.7 g/dL, and six required surgical drainage.[19]

Bowel injury during retropubic passage is rare, reported in the range of 0-0.04% of the literature reviewed in one chapter summary, and the injuries in that review followed retropubic rather than transobturator passage; prior abdominal or pelvic surgery with bowel adhesions is a recurring risk context. Presentation is typically within hours to days, with abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting, decreased urine output, or peritoneal signs, but case reports also describe delayed or atypical presentations, including diarrhea and right-sided pain from ascending-colon involvement, bowel obstruction, and an incidentally discovered injury without symptoms. Abdominal/pelvic CT is considered when the course is unclear.[15] Management described in that review is operative exploration, sling removal, and bowel repair or resection as findings dictate.[15]

AUA/SUFU recommends early postoperative contact to assess significant voiding problems, pain, or unexpected events, with examination if these occur .[4] NICE NG123 recommends a follow-up appointment within 6 months after SUI surgery; after RMUS, the visit should include a vaginal examination for mesh exposure or extrusion.[10]

Operative Pearls​

  • Confirm SUI objectively before surgery. In mixed incontinence, EAU weakly recommends treating the most bothersome symptom first; urgency after SUI surgery is unpredictable, and other components may need separate treatment.[8]
  • Put the tape at the midurethra, not the bladder neck.
  • Use cystoscopy deliberately: bladder, urethra, trigone, and trocar path all matter.
  • If the trocar perforates bladder, remove it, repass it correctly, and re-cystoscope.
  • If urethral injury occurs during vaginal dissection or trocar passage, abandon synthetic sling placement, close the urethral defect primarily, and leave an indwelling Foley catheter for healing, consistent with guidance against placing synthetic sling material in the presence of a urethrotomy.[4][16]
  • A flat loose tape is better than a perfect-looking tight tape.

Videos​

Placement of a Retropubic Synthetic Mid Urethral Sling — Step by Step
AUA Core Videos (2017)
Laparoscopic-Guided TVT After Prior Colposuspension
Pitsillidi A, et al. Facts Views Vis ObGyn 2026
Read the article

References​

1. Wu JM. "Stress Incontinence in Women." N Engl J Med. 2021;384(25):2428-2436. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1914037

2. Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody JD, Aluko P, Ogah JA. "Mid-Urethral Sling Operations for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD006375. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006375.pub4

3. Richter HE, Albo ME, Zyczynski HM, et al. "Retropubic versus Transobturator Midurethral Slings for Stress Incontinence." N Engl J Med. 2010;362(22):2066-2076. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0912658

4. Kobashi KC, Vasavada S, Bloschichak A, et al. "Updates to Surgical Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI): AUA/SUFU Guideline (2023)." J Urol. 2023;209(6):1091-1098. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003435

5. Gurol-Urganci I, Geary RS, Mamza JB, et al. "Long-Term Rate of Mesh Sling Removal Following Midurethral Mesh Sling Insertion Among Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence." JAMA. 2018;320(16):1659-1669. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.14997

6. American Urogynecologic Society. "Midurethral Sling Supplemental Information Checklist." 2021.

7. Imamura M, Hudson J, Wallace SA, et al. "Surgical Interventions for Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials." BMJ. 2019;365:l1842. doi:10.1136/bmj.l1842

8. European Association of Urology. Non-neurogenic Female LUTS: Disease Management. Limited update March 2026, section 4.2.4.c.2.e (midurethral slings). Midurethral sling recommendations.

9. Schierlitz L, Dwyer PL, Rosamilia A, et al. "Three-year follow-up of tension-free vaginal tape compared with transobturator tape in women with stress urinary incontinence and intrinsic sphincter deficiency." Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(2 Pt 1):321-327. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823dfc73

10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management. NG123. Published April 2019; last updated June 2019. Recommendations 1.5.2, 1.5.7 and 1.5.9. Recommendations

11. Klutke JJ, Carlin BI, Klutke CG. The tension-free vaginal tape procedure: correction of stress incontinence with minimal alteration in proximal urethral mobility. Urology. 2000;55(4):512-4. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00551-8

12. Viereck V, Nebel M, Bader W, et al. Role of bladder neck mobility and urethral closure pressure in predicting outcome of tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28(2):214-20. doi:10.1002/uog.2834

13. Wolter CE. Tension-free vaginal tape/suprapubic midurethral sling. In: Smith JA Jr, Dmochowski RR, Thomas JC, Preminger GM, eds. Hinman's Atlas of Urologic Surgery. 5th ed. Elsevier; 2025:771-775.

14. Razdan S, Gousse AE. Voiding dysfunction after female pelvic surgery. In: Martins FE, Holm HV, Sandhu JS, McCammon KA, eds. Female Genitourinary and Pelvic Floor Reconstruction. Springer; 2023:275-300. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19598-3_16

15. Gaines N, Gupta P, Sirls LT. Synthetic midurethral slings: exposure and perforation. In: Goldman HB, ed. Complications of Female Incontinence and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery. 2nd ed. Springer (Humana Press); 2017:177-192. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49855-3_17

16. Brown ET, Cohn JA, Kaufman MR, Reynolds WS, Dmochowski RR. Synthetic midurethral slings: urinary tract sequelae. In: Goldman HB, ed. Complications of Female Incontinence and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery. 2nd ed. Springer (Humana Press); 2017:165-176. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49855-3_16

17. Nilsson CG, Palva K, Aarnio R, Morcos E, Falconer C. "Seventeen years' follow-up of the tension-free vaginal tape procedure for female stress urinary incontinence." Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(8):1265-1269. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2090-2

18. Ethicon. GYNECARE TVT EXACT Continence System and GYNECARE TVT Reusable Rigid Catheter Guide: Instructions for Use. LAB0012869v7, February 2021. Manufacturer IFU.

19. Balachandran A, Curtiss N, Duckett J. "The management of massive haematomas after insertion of retropubic mid-urethral slings." Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(10):1449–1452. doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2592-6

20. Alexandridis V, Lundmark Drca A, Ek M, et al. "Retropubic slings are more efficient than transobturator at 10-year follow-up: a Swedish register-based study." Int Urogynecol J. 2023;34(6):1307–1315. doi:10.1007/s00192-023-05506-4