The Indication and Surgical Treatment of 286 Midurethral Synthetic Sling Complications: A Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: 1) Evaluate the most common indication for sling removal in patients with synthetic mesh slings; 2) identify the location of pain for each of the three types of synthetic sling procedures including retropubic (RP) sling, transobturator (TOT) sling, and single incision slings (SIS), and 3) describe the surgical approach to each of the above and its associated complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent surgical removal of a sling due to a mesh-related complications from 2011 to 2013 at three referral centers. RESULTS: There were 337 sling complications followed by the IUGA/ICS mesh complication classification. RP slings were more likely to have urinary tract complications (category 4) and intra-abdominal site complications (S5). Of those, 286 slings were removed, 106 (37.1%) were RP, 131 (45.8%) TOT, and 44 (15.4%) SIS. Vaginal pain was the most common reason for sling removal. Twenty-one percent of the TOT had groin pain which was a five times higher risk than RP (OR 5.3, 95% CI 1.5-18.7), and the RP was three times more likely to have suprapubic pain than the TOT (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.3-7.0). Fifteen percent of the TOT had either unilateral or bilateral groin mesh removal. CONCLUSION: The most common indication for sling removal was vaginal pain. RP sling had a higher risk of suprapubic pain and TOT sling had a higher risk of groin pain. Patients with a history of SIS had a higher incidence of urethral erosion. TOT removal had the highest intraoperative complication rate.

Indications and Complications Associated with the Removal of 506 Pieces of Vaginal Mesh Used in Pelvic Floor Reconstruction: A Multicenter Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Synthetic mesh utilized to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) can often result in postoperative complications. The objectives of this study were to determine: 1) the most common indications for mesh removal; 2) the incidences of the removal of specific mesh procedures (such as suburethral sling [SUS], transvaginal mesh [TVM], or sacrocolpopexy); and 3) the idences and types of surgical complications associated with mesh removal. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. Design Classification: Canadian Task Force II-3. SETTING: Three tertiary referral centers in the United States. PATIENTS: We examined data from all patients at the three centers who underwent surgical removal of synthetic materials from previous SUS, TVM, and sacrocolpopexy procedures for mesh-related complications from 2011 to 2013. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent vaginal, intra-abdominal, and inguinal mesh revisions by cutting, partial removal, or total removal of the mesh for mesh-related complications. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Overall, 445 patients with complications underwent mesh removal laparoscopically, via groin dissection and/or transvaginally. There were a total of 506 mesh products removed. Of these, 56.5% were slings and 43.5% were for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Synthetic mesh removed from patients included: transvaginal mesh (TVM) anterior for anterior vaginal prolapse, TVM posterior for posterior vaginal prolapse, sacrocolpopexy mesh, and suburethral slings (SUS) for stress urinary incontinence. Synthetic SUS removed included: retropubic (RPS), transobturator (TOT), and single-incision slings (SIS). TOT was the most common type of sling removed. Patients with a sling who only complained of vaginal pain with or without intercourse underwent a vaginal approach for surgical revision/removal of the sling (86.6%). Patients with an RPS with lower abdominal/suprapubic pain and vaginal pain underwent a vaginal and laparoscopic approach for sling removal (18.4%). Patients with a TOT sling who complained of vaginal and groin pain underwent a vaginal and inguinal approach for sling removal (4.3%). In patients who had POP mesh removal, 42.3% had an anterior TVM, 30.6% had a posterior TVM, 14% had both anterior and posterior TVMs, and 13.1% underwent sacrocolpopexy mesh removal. Complications encountered during mesh revision/removal surgery were: two blood transfusions from complete RPS removal (vaginal and laparoscopic approach), three urethral injuries during TOT sling removal (vaginal approach), two ureteral injuries during anterior vaginal wall mesh removal, and two rectal injuries during posterior vaginal wall mesh removal. All injuries were repaired at the time of mesh removal without recurrence. CONCLUSION: In our study, the most common indication for mesh removal was pain with or without intercourse. The most common mesh procedure resulting in removal was the TOT sling. Use of a vaginal approach only for sling removal had the lowest incidence of intraoperative complications. Laparoscopic RPS removal had the highest incidence of required blood transfusions, anterior TVM had the highest incidence of ureteral injury, and posterior TVM had the highest incidence of rectal injury. Overall, sling, TVM, and sacrocolpopexy mesh removal are safe procedures when performed by experienced surgeons.

The IUGA/ICS classification of synthetic mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to report patterns of sling and transvaginal mesh-related complications using the IUGA/ICS classification of prosthesis-related complications. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent surgical removal of sling, transvaginal mesh, and sacrocolpopexy for mesh-related complications from 2011 to 2013 at three tertiary referral centers. The International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) classification system was utilized. RESULTS: We identified 445 patients with mesh complications, 506 pieces of synthetic mesh were removed, and 587 prostheses-related complications were classified. 3.7 % of patients had viscus organ penetration or vaginal exposure as their presenting chief complaint and 59.7 % were classified as not having any vaginal epithelial separation or category 1. The most common category was spontaneous pain (1Be: 32.5 %) followed by dyspareunia (1Bc: 14.7 %). The sling group was 20 % more likely to have pain compared with the pelvic organ prolapse (POP) mesh group (OR 1.2, 95 % CI 0.8-1.6). The most commonly affected site (S2) was away from the suture line (49 %). Compared with the sling group, the POP group had a higher rate of mesh exposure, which mostly occurred at the suture line area. The majority of patients presented with mesh-related complications more than 1 year post-insertion (T4; average 3.68 ± 2.47 years). CONCLUSION: Surgeons should be aware that patients with vaginal mesh complications routinely exhibit complications more than 1 year after the implantation with pain as the most common presenting symptom.