TY - JOUR
T1 - Pain Resolution and Recurrent Prolapse Rates Following Vaginal Mesh Removal
AU - Bergersen, Andrew
AU - Price, Elinora
AU - Callegari, Michael
AU - Austin, Evan
AU - Oduyemi, Odutoyosi
AU - Hsu, Chiu Hsieh
AU - Funk, Joel T.
AU - Twiss, Christian O.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: None. Financial Disclosures: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2021/4
Y1 - 2021/4
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pain resolution and recurrent prolapse following removal of painful pelvic organ prolapse (POP) mesh. METHODS: This was an IRB-approved retrospective review of patients who underwent POP mesh removal from 2009 to 2018 for the primary indication of pain and/or dyspareunia. Factors of interest included mesh type, complete versus partial removal, presenting symptom(s), and recurrent prolapse. Complete removal was defined as complete excision of all possible mesh, including arms, and partial removal was anything less. Postoperative symptom improvement was categorized as resolved, improved, or unresolved. RESULTS: Ninety-two mesh removal patients were identified, 78 of whom underwent mesh removal for pain or dyspareunia, with mean follow-up of 17.25 months (range: 0.46-60.25). Overall, presenting symptoms resolved or improved in 85.9%. In the 45 complete removal patients, 46.7% resolved, 40.0% improved, and 11.1% unresolved compared to 51.5% resolved, 33.3% improved, and 12.1% unresolved in the 33 partial removal patients (P = .82). Recurrent symptomatic POP developed in 31.1% of patients after complete removal compared to 15.2% after partial removal (P = .12). Overall, 23 (30.3%) patients required additional reconstructive procedures. CONCLUSION: Most patients experienced resolution or improvement in painful symptoms after any degree of mesh removal. Complete removal was not significantly associated with greater symptom improvement compared to partial removal. Complete removal was associated with a higher percentage of recurrent POP, but this association was not statistically significant. Less than one-third of patients required additional surgery.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pain resolution and recurrent prolapse following removal of painful pelvic organ prolapse (POP) mesh. METHODS: This was an IRB-approved retrospective review of patients who underwent POP mesh removal from 2009 to 2018 for the primary indication of pain and/or dyspareunia. Factors of interest included mesh type, complete versus partial removal, presenting symptom(s), and recurrent prolapse. Complete removal was defined as complete excision of all possible mesh, including arms, and partial removal was anything less. Postoperative symptom improvement was categorized as resolved, improved, or unresolved. RESULTS: Ninety-two mesh removal patients were identified, 78 of whom underwent mesh removal for pain or dyspareunia, with mean follow-up of 17.25 months (range: 0.46-60.25). Overall, presenting symptoms resolved or improved in 85.9%. In the 45 complete removal patients, 46.7% resolved, 40.0% improved, and 11.1% unresolved compared to 51.5% resolved, 33.3% improved, and 12.1% unresolved in the 33 partial removal patients (P = .82). Recurrent symptomatic POP developed in 31.1% of patients after complete removal compared to 15.2% after partial removal (P = .12). Overall, 23 (30.3%) patients required additional reconstructive procedures. CONCLUSION: Most patients experienced resolution or improvement in painful symptoms after any degree of mesh removal. Complete removal was not significantly associated with greater symptom improvement compared to partial removal. Complete removal was associated with a higher percentage of recurrent POP, but this association was not statistically significant. Less than one-third of patients required additional surgery.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089493939&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089493939&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.057
DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.057
M3 - Article
C2 - 32673676
AN - SCOPUS:85089493939
SN - 0090-4295
VL - 150
SP - 134
EP - 138
JO - Urology
JF - Urology
ER -