Devices and Meshes for the Surgical Treatment of Prolapse and IncontinenceApproval Process for Devices and Mesh for Surgical Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Urinary IncontinenceNYGAARD, INGRID MD, MSAuthor Information Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah The author declares that there is nothing to disclose. Correspondence: Ingrid Nygaard, MD, MS, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology: June 2013 - Volume 56 - Issue 2 - p 229–231 doi: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e318282f2d7 Buy Metrics Abstract Most marketed devices in the United States, including most used to treat prolapse and incontinence, are marketed without FDA approval; instead, they gain “clearance” as a class II device through premarket notification [also known as the 510(k) process]. Under this process, the manufacturer states that the device is substantially equivalent to one already on the market. Thus, mesh kits for prolapse and incontinence were not required to undergo clinical testing before reaching the market. In January 2012, the FDA announced that it would require postmarket surveillance studies to address safety and effectiveness of mesh kits for prolapse and for single-incision slings. © 2013 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.