The Location and Distribution of Transurethral Bulking Agent: 3-Dimensional Ultrasound Study.

OBJECTIVES: To use 3-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound to describe the location and distribution of bulking agent after an uncomplicated transurethral injection. METHODS: Endovaginal ultrasound was performed in 24 treatment-naive patients immediately after bulking agent was injected. The distance between the center of the hyperechoic density of bulking agent and the urethrovesical junction (UVJ) was measured in the sagittal and axial views. This was calculated in percentile length of urethra. Also, the pattern of tracking of bulking agent was assessed if it is presented. RESULTS: After the 2 subjects were excluded because of the poor quality of images, 22 patients were included in this study. Eighteen (82%) subjects showed 2 sites of bulking agents, and mostly, they were located around 3- and 9-o'clock positions. The average distance of bulking agent from left UVJ was at 16.9% of the length of the urethra (6.2 mm; range, 0.5-17 mm) and at 25.5% of the length of the urethra (8.9 mm; range, 0-24.8 mm) in the right side. The average length of urethra was 36.7 mm. Eleven of the 22 subjects (50%) had both sides within upper one third of urethra. The difference in distance between the 2 sides was less than 10 mm in 12 of 22 patients (54%). Nine of the 22 patients (41%) had a significant spread of bulking agent mostly either into the bladder neck or toward the distal urethra. CONCLUSIONS: Although the bulking agent is most often found at 3- and 9-o'clock positions as intended, the distance from the UVJ is highly variable after an uncomplicated office-based transurethral injection. The bulking material does not form the characteristic spheres in 41% of cases and tracks toward the bladder neck or the distal urethra.

The significant morbidity of removing pelvic mesh from multiple vaginal compartments.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate perioperative complications of mesh removal performed in the operating room from a single-site, tertiary care center with a large volume of referrals for mesh removal and to compare the morbidity associated with single-compartment mesh removal compared with removal from multiple vaginal compartments. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all patients who underwent mesh removal from January 2008 to April 2014. Patients were identified based on Current Procedural Terminology codes for removal of vaginal mesh or sling. Summary statistics were calculated for the patient population. Complications were compared between single-compartment mesh removal surgery and multicompartment mesh removal surgery. A P value of <.05 was considered significant for all analyses. RESULTS: During a 75-month period, a total of 398 procedures were performed for the removal of vaginally placed mesh. A total of 326 (82%) patients underwent single-compartment surgery, 48 (12%) underwent multicompartment surgery, and in 26 (6%), the type of surgery was unclear. The indications for mesh removal included: pain (63%), dyspareunia (57%), mesh exposure (54%), and voiding dysfunction (39%). The mean length of mesh removed was 4 cm (standard deviation±2.8). Those with multicompartment surgery had approximately three times higher estimated blood loss compared with single-compartment surgery (P<.001). The odds of blood transfusion after multicompartment surgery were more than nine times higher than the odds of transfusion after a single-compartment surgery (odds ratio 9.7, 95% confidence interval 2.1-44.6; P<.01). CONCLUSION: Bleeding complications are higher with concomitant removal of mesh from multiple vaginal compartments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.