Minimally invasive surgery has been a term used to describe laparoscopic surgery and more recently the trocar-guided synthetic mid-urethral slings for stress incontinence and the trocar-guided synthetic mesh kits to treat prolapse. This term implies a lesser operation, more pain free and safer, which in many cases is not true. This description seems more to do with marketing the product and the surgeon than actually describing the benefits and risks of the procedure. When complications occur as they always will, they may be more unexpected by the patient and poorly tolerated. Therefore informed consent, giving the patient a clear understating of the procedure, possible risks and benefits, and likely outcome, is essential. Synthetic polypropylene slings (SPS) are not new and were used to treat women with stress incontinence by Morgan in Northern America and Moir in the UK in the 1960s. These slings were placed under the bladder neck through open abdominal and vaginal incisions. However, it was not until the mid-1990s with the introduction of the tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) that SPS gained widespread usage when placed through small incisions using trocar needles at the mid-urethral position. These retropubic slings have been found to have benefits of shorter hospitalization, less postoperative pain and a lower morbidity than the Burch colposuspension and fascial slings but equal effectiveness. Over the last 6 years, numerous variations of the TVT have been introduced, including the transobturator approach and the no-incision mini-slings (TVT Secur, Gynecare Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ) and Miniarc (American Medical Systems Inc., Minnetonka, MN). A major advantage of the transobturator and minislings is the avoidance of the retropubic space, decreasing complications such as bladder and bowel perforation, and major vascular injury. Bladder perforation in retropubic slings is a common complication with reported rates of 0.7% to 34.2% compared to 0% to 3.1% in the transobturator approach [1]; if recognized, sling replacement is performed without clinical sequel. Bowel and vascular injuries are more serious and have resulted in patient deaths. These complications have resulted in many surgeons changing from retropubic slings or preferring to learn the other approaches. Current sales of these stress incontinence devices according to industry sources are “obturator slings make up just over half of the total synthetic sling procedures performed in the US. Newer single incision slings represent between 15%–20%. The remaining 30% are retropubic slings. This is across all major/medium size brands.” However, is this change away from retropubic slings for perceived safety reasons premature and in the patient’s best long-term interests? Prospective randomized studies [1] comparing the retropubic and transobturator slings in woman with non-intrinsic sphincter deficiency (non-ISD) stress urinary incontinence (SUI) have shown no significant difference in effectiveness, although follow-up in these studies is of short duration (less than a year) and based on symptoms only. However, short-term subjective outcomes may not be indicative of more long-term results. In a study comparing pubovaginal sling to transurethral Macroplastique injection in ISD patients [2] the subjective symptomatic improvement was not significantly different at 6 months, but urodynamic SUI cure at 6 months, (81% vs. 9%) and 5 year symptomatic cure was significantly in favor of the pubovaginal fascial sling (69% vs. 21%). In women with ISD, SUI the retropubic TVT sling has been shown to be more Int Urogynecol J (2009) 20:485–486 DOI 10.1007/s00192-009-0854-5