To determine the usefulness of mid-urethral slings (MUS) in the surgical management of women presenting with urinary stress incontinence (USI) METHOD: A consensus committee of multidisciplinary experts (CUROPF) was convened and focused on PICO questions concerning the efficacy and safety of MUS surgery compared to other procedures and concerning which approach (retropubic (RP) vs transobturator (TO)) should be proposed as a first-line MUS surgery for specific subpopulations (obese; intrinsic sphincteric deficiency (ISD); elderly) RESULTS: As compared to other procedures (urethral bulking agents, traditional slings and open colposuspension), the MUS procedure should be proposed as the first-line surgical therapy (strong agreement). MUS surgery can be associated with complications and proper pre-operative informed consent is mandatory (strong agreement). Mini-slings (SIS/SIMS) should only be proposed in clinical trials (strong agreement). Both RP and TO approaches may be proposed for the insertion of MUS (strong agreement). However, if the woman is willing to accept a moderate increase in per-operative risk, the RP approach should be preferred (strong agreement) since it is associated with higher very long-term cure rates and as it is possible to completely remove the sling surgically if a severe complication occurs. The RP approach should be used for the insertion of MUS in a woman presenting with ISD (strong agreement). Either the RP or TO approach should be used for the insertion of MUS in an obese woman presenting with USI (strong agreement). In very obese women (BMI ≥35-40kg/m ), weight loss should be preferred prior to MUS surgery and bariatric surgery should be discussed (strong agreement) CONCLUSION: The current Opinion provides an appropriate strategy for both the selection of patients and the best therapeutic approach in women presenting with USI.