For the first time, experts from the Institute of Urology and Human Reproductive Health at Sechenov University have been invited to present at the world’s most prestigious international forum on urogynecology—the 51st International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) Annual Meeting, held in Rio de Janeiro.

The Sechenov delegation made a significant impact, presenting six reports as part of the scientific program, three of which were oral presentations. Their topics addressed critical clinical questions, including the rationale for prescribing estriol for female urinary incontinence, the evidence for staged surgical treatment of incontinence and prolapse, and a novel hybrid pelvic floor reconstruction technique developed in-house at Sechenov.

The IUGA is the world’s leading academic organization and the world's foremost authority in the field of urogynecological expertise. This year’s invitation marked a milestone for the Sechenov team, whose submitted abstracts and topics were all approved by the organizing committee. 

“Having all six of our submitted topics accepted by IUGA’s committee is a testament to the growing recognition of Russian urogynecologists' clinical experience and scientific competence,” said Dr. Mikhail Enikeev, Head of Urological Department No. 2 at the Sechenov University Clinic of Urology. “The organizers successfully fostered an atmosphere of trust and goodwill, where mutual respect and cooperation were the top priorities.”

Dr. Diana Babaevskaya, a research fellow at the Institute, presented a study on how patients with pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence perceive two-stage surgical treatment. According to both European and Russian protocols, prolapse is typically addressed first, with incontinence surgery as a second step.

“We found that 50–55% of women can have both issues resolved in a single operation,” Dr. Babaevskaya explained. “However, other patients, after the first procedure, often decline further surgery due to treatment fatigue or fear of complications—leaving them with persistent incontinence and a lower quality of life.”

She added that if a surgeon plans a single combined intervention, European guidelines require them to warn the patient about a potentially higher complication rate. Dr. Enikeev, however, cautioned against overstating these risks: “While complications do occur, in most cases they are minor adjustments—tightening or loosening a mesh—and rarely require a complete reoperation. The current warning protocols were drafted back in 2011, at the dawn of prolapse surgery. Today, wide meshes have been largely replaced by thin polypropylene strips, and in many cases, surgeons work exclusively with native tissues. Frightening patients with outdated complication statistics is neither correct nor constructive.”

A key podium lecture was delivered by Professor Enikeev himself, spotlighting a hybrid surgical technique for urogenital prolapse developed at Sechenov University. This method replaces wide synthetic prostheses with narrow slings that mimic uterosacral ligaments, while maximizing the use of the patient’s native fascia.

“Replacing broad mesh prostheses with narrow loops—essentially simulating the uterosacral ligaments—combined with the maximal use of native fascial resources, represents the most promising direction in modern transvaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse,” Professor Enikeev elaborated.

Professor Enikeev noted that the global urogynecological community remains divided on the use of synthetic mesh. While the UK has imposed a ban, the US, Latin America, China, Japan, and Northern Europe continue to permit their use.

“Russia takes the most balanced approach to this issue,” he concluded. “On one hand, we are actively researching techniques that rely solely on native tissues. On the other hand, when a mesh is truly necessary to restore a woman’s health, it should be used. Our hybrid technique represents that reasonable middle ground—striking the optimal balance between safety and efficacy.”