New England Journal of Medicine · 2010
TOMUSTrial of Mid-Urethral Slings

Retropubic vs Transobturator Midurethral Slings for Stress Urinary Incontinence

Richter HE, Albo ME, Zyczynski HM, Kenton K, Norton PA, et al. · Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network (UITN)
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912658 · ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00325039
Design
Equivalence RCT
Patients
597
Sites
9
Follow-up
12 months
Completion
94.6%
Arm A · n = 298
Retropubic
TVT (Gynecare)
Arm B · n = 299
Transobturator
TVT-O or Monarc
Primary Outcome — 12-Month Success
Objective
Success EQUIVALENT
RP
80.8%
TO
77.7%
Subjective
Success NOT MET
RP
62.2%
TO
55.8%
Patient Satisfaction
85.9%
Retropubic
=
90.0%
Transobturator
P = 0.14 (no significant difference)
Different Complication Profiles
RP
Higher with Retropubic
  • Bladder perforation: 5.0% vs 0%
  • Voiding dysfunction requiring surgery: 2.7% vs 0% (P=0.004)
  • Mesh exposure: 2.7% vs 0.7%
  • Median blood loss: 50 vs 25 ml
TO
Higher with Transobturator
  • Neurologic symptoms: 9.4% vs 4.0% (P=0.01)
  • Groin numbness and leg weakness
  • Vaginal epithelial perforation: 4.3% vs 2.0%
Take-Home Message

Retropubic and transobturator midurethral slings achieve equivalent objective cure rates for stress urinary incontinence at 12 months. However, their complication profiles differ — retropubic slings carry more voiding dysfunction and bladder perforation risk, while transobturator slings have more neurologic symptoms. Sling route selection should be individualized based on patient anatomy, risk tolerance, and shared decision-making.