{"title":"Slings operations work very differently from mesh sheet implantations and should not be banned","authors":"P. Petros","doi":"10.34057/ppj.2021.40.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The persistent media campaign against mesh products in the United Kingdom (UK) successfully resulted in the banning earlier this year of all mesh slings and mesh kits by the UK government. Unlike the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) where suppliers of mesh kits were put on notice to provide the data to justify their continued sale, the UK government instituted the Cumberlage report, and acted on its recommendations. As the co-inventor of the now discontinued midurethral sling (MUS), the subject of this editorial, I fully endorse the recommendations for thorough premarket testing on any implantable device, for that is exactly the course which the late Ulf Ulmsten and I followed with the MUS. I also endorse the ban against mesh sheets which did not follow the exhaustive testing of the MUS. The Cumberlage report, unfortunately, is not based or robust scientific data. It consisted of opinions mainly from non-experts, including a journalist. It does not take into consideration the vast 10-year clinical and scientific background of the MUS. Apparently not considered were well reasoned scientific opinions from expert committees from almost every learned body, which generally concluded that the benefits of slings far outweighed their complications and, even years ago, that mesh sheet surgery required more proof. ABSTRACT","PeriodicalId":92832,"journal":{"name":"Pelviperineology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pelviperineology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34057/ppj.2021.40.01.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The persistent media campaign against mesh products in the United Kingdom (UK) successfully resulted in the banning earlier this year of all mesh slings and mesh kits by the UK government. Unlike the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) where suppliers of mesh kits were put on notice to provide the data to justify their continued sale, the UK government instituted the Cumberlage report, and acted on its recommendations. As the co-inventor of the now discontinued midurethral sling (MUS), the subject of this editorial, I fully endorse the recommendations for thorough premarket testing on any implantable device, for that is exactly the course which the late Ulf Ulmsten and I followed with the MUS. I also endorse the ban against mesh sheets which did not follow the exhaustive testing of the MUS. The Cumberlage report, unfortunately, is not based or robust scientific data. It consisted of opinions mainly from non-experts, including a journalist. It does not take into consideration the vast 10-year clinical and scientific background of the MUS. Apparently not considered were well reasoned scientific opinions from expert committees from almost every learned body, which generally concluded that the benefits of slings far outweighed their complications and, even years ago, that mesh sheet surgery required more proof. ABSTRACT