Patient Satisfaction After Sling Revision for Voiding Dysfunction After Sling Placement

Management of Vaginal Mesh Exposures Following Female Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss considerations and current evidence for the diagnosis and management of vaginal mesh exposures following female mesh-augmented anti-incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the introduction of mesh into female pelvic surgery, various applications have been reported, each with their own unique risk profile. The most commonly encountered mesh-related complication is vaginal mesh exposure. Current evidence on the management of vaginal mesh exposure is largely limited to observational studies and case series, though this is continuing to expand. We present a synthesis of the available data, as well as clinical and surgical approaches to managing this complication. It is important for surgeons to be familiar with the management of vaginal mesh exposures. Depending on the patient's presentation and goals, there is a role for conservative measures, mesh revision, or mesh excision. Further study is warranted to standardize mesh resection techniques and explore non-surgical treatments.

Challenges of Multidimensional Outcome Reporting after Suburethral Mid Urethral Sling Removal

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the types and frequency of presenting symptoms in women undergoing suburethral mid urethral sling removal to improve outcome reporting after removal.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following institutional review board approval women who underwent suburethral mid urethral sling removal of 1 mid urethral sling were evaluated for their presenting symptoms and correlation with the UDI-6 (Urogenital Distress Inventory-Short Form) questionnaire. Demographic data were recorded. Patient reported presenting symptoms were categorized into 5 domains, including storage symptoms, voiding symptoms, pain, recurrent urinary tract infections or urinary incontinence. The UDI-6 was reviewed preoperatively and 6 to 12 months postoperatively. We also calculated an ideal outcome, defined as resolution of incontinence, pain, resumption of sexual activity and no need for further anti-incontinence procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 230 women from 2006 to 2017 met study inclusion criteria, including 116 who completed the UDI-6 postoperatively. Of the women 80% had 3 or more presenting symptoms with pain as the most common symptom. The most common combination of symptoms was all 5 domains, which was noted in 46 of the 230 women (20%). An increasing number of symptoms correlated with the total preoperative UDI-6 score. Symptom domains were associated with the corresponding UDI-6 subdomain questions. Domains not covered by the UDI-6, ie recurrent urinary tract infections and dyspareunia, accounted for 27% of reported symptoms. Due to limited data on sexual activity an ideal outcome was reached in 10% of patients but this rate was 40% after sexual activity information was excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series the presenting symptoms were manifold in women undergoing suburethral mid urethral sling removal. The UDI-6 questionnaire correlated with many of these complaints. It may be used in outcome analysis in conjunction with self-reported symptoms.

The Outcome of Repeated Mid Urethral Sling in SUI Treatment after Vaginal Excisions of Primary Failed Sling: Preliminary Study

Mid urethral sling is the standard in SUI treatment. Nevertheless, the risk of reoperation reaches 9%. There is no consensus as to the best treatment option for complications. A question is raised: what is the optimal way to achieve the best result in patients after primary failure? The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes of repeat MUS surgery in patients after excision of the sling with recurrent SUI. We compared its effectiveness with uncomplicated cases treated with TVT. 27 patients who underwent the repeated MUS and 50 consecutive patients after primary TVT were enrolled in the study. After 6 months, we have found that 24 (88.46%) patients from repeat sling group and 48 (96%) patients after primary sling were dry (1-hour pad test, 2 g or less). The difference between groups was not significant. We showed statistically significant improvement of quality of life in both groups. In conclusion, we showed that repeated sling after MUS excision is almost as effective as primary MUS. We postulate that sling excision and repeated MUS may be the best option for persistent SUI and/or complications after MUS procedures. Further multicenter observations are ongoing as to provide results on bigger group of cases.