Table 1.
Pubovaginal sling materials and their advantages and disadvantages
| Used Materials | Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autologous Graft Materials | Rectus muscle | * Maximum bio-compatibility | * Increased operation time |
| Fascia lata | * Negligible tissue reaction | * Increased suprapubic pain | |
| Vaginal wall | * Negligible urethral perforation | * Increased hospital stay | |
| * Highest success rates | * Risk of suprapubic seroma | ||
| * Lower rates of complications | * Risk of suprapubic incisional hernia | ||
| Allograft Materials | Cadaveric rectus fascia | * Easy to use | * Risk of transmitting illnesses such as CJD, hepatitis, HIV |
| Cadaveric fascia lata | * Available in a variety of sizes | ||
| Cadaveric dermis tissue | * Smaller suprapubic incision | * Less tensile strength | |
| * Reduced operative time | * Increased costs | ||
| * Reduced hospital stay | |||
| * Decreased postoperative pain | |||
| Xenograft Materials | Bovine pericardium | * Smaller suprapubic incision | * Less tensile strength |
| Porcine bowel | * Decreased postoperative pain | * Tendency of encapsulation | |
| Porcine dermis | * Reduced operative time | * Foreign body reaction | |
| * Reduced hospital stay | * Increased costs |
HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; CJD: Creutzfeldt-Jacob prion disease