Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Outcomes after laparoscopic removal of retropubic midurethral slings for chronic pain

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Midurethral slings (MUS) are an established treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), with good objective outcomes and low rates of complications. However, large population-based registry studies highlighted long-term complications from polypropylene slings including erosion, dyspareunia and chronic pain. With recent highly negative media coverage, many women are presenting with chronic pain attributed to the mesh to request complete removal. The available literature provides limited evidence on safety, symptom resolution and incontinence following MUS removal.

Methods

We identified all patients who underwent laparoscopic removal of MUS mesh at our hospital between 2011 and 2016. We extracted data from medical records to assess operative safety and contacted all patients by questionnaire that incorporated pain scales, symptom severity and satisfaction.

Results

A total of 56 women were assessed. Removal occurred at a median of 44 months following sling insertion (range 3–192). Mean operative time was 74 min (range 44–132). Two patients were returned to theatre (one at 24 hours and one at 14 days) to evacuate a retropubic haematoma, but no visceral injuries occurred. The median inpatient stay was 2 days (range 1–7). Of the 46% of patients who returned the questionnaire (n = 26), 88% said they would recommend the procedure. There was a median 6-point decrease in pain scores (10-point numerical scale, p < 0.0001); 44.6% reported worsening SUI, more common with removal of the suburethral mesh [odds ratio (OR) 10.72 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10–104].

Conclusions

Laparoscopic removal of MUS is feasible and effective but carries a risk of worsening SUI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wu JM, Gandhi MP, Shah AD, et al. Trends in inpatient urinary incontinence surgery in the USA, 1998-2007. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:1437–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1509-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jonsson Funk M, Edenfield AL, Pate V, et al. Trends in use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:79.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gibson W, Wagg A. Are older women more likely to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence since the introduction of the mid-urethral sling? An examination of hospital episode statistics data. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;123:1386–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13338.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kurkijärvi K, Aaltonen R, Gissler M, Mäkinen J. Surgery for stress urinary incontinence in Finland 1987-2009. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:1021–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2926-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Haya N, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, et al. Prolapse and continence surgery in countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2012. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:755.e1–755.e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ulmsten U, Falconer C, Johnson P, et al. A multicenter study of tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1998;9:210–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bader G, Fauconnier A, Roger N, et al. Cystocele repair by vaginal approach with a tension-free transversal polypropylene mesh. Technique and results. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2004;32:280–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2004.02.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Welk B, Al-Hothi H, Winick-Ng J. Removal or revision of vaginal mesh used for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:1167–75. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2015.2590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jonsson Funk M, Siddiqui NY, Pate V, et al. Sling revision/removal for mesh erosion and urinary retention: long-term risk and predictors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:73.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Keltie K, Elneil S, Monga A, et al. Complications following vaginal mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence: an 8 year study of 92,246 women. Sci Rep. 2017;7:12015. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11821-w.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Fusco F, Abdel-Fattah M, Chapple CR, et al. Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparative data on Colposuspensions, Pubovaginal slings, and Midurethral Tapes in the surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2017;72:567–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Morling JR, McAllister DA, Agur W, et al. Adverse events after first, single, mesh and non-mesh surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Scotland, 1997-2016: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017;389:629–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32572-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zoorob D, Karram M, Stecher A, et al. Analysis of surgical outcomes and determinants of litigation among women with transvaginal mesh complications. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:404–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nolfi AL, Brown BN, Liang R, et al. Host response to synthetic mesh in women with mesh complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:206.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chughtai B, Sedrakyan A, Mao J, et al. Is vaginal mesh a stimulus of autoimmune disease? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:495.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.12.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chughtai B, Sedrakyan A, Mao J, et al. Challenging the myth: transvaginal mesh is not associated with carcinogenesis. J Urol. 2017;198:884–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moalli P, Brown B, Reitman MTF, Nager CW. Polypropylene mesh: evidence for lack of carcinogenicity. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:573–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2343-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Barber MD. Surgical techniques for removing problematic mesh. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;56:289–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e3182856371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rigaud J, Pothin P, Labat JJ, et al. Functional results after tape removal for chronic pelvic pain following tension-free vaginal tape or transobturator tape. J Urol. 2010;184:610–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rouprêt M, Misraï V, Vaessen C, et al. Laparoscopic surgical complete sling resection for tension-free vaginal tape-related complications refractory to first-line conservative management: a single-Centre experience. Eur Urol. 2010;58:270–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boulanger L, Boukerrou M, Rubod C, et al. Bacteriological analysis of meshes removed for complications after surgical management of urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:827–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0537-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Li L, Wang X, Park JY, et al. Pathological findings in explanted vaginal mesh. Hum Pathol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2017.07.020.

  23. Baines G, Jackson SR, Price N. Obturator nerve injury: a rare complication of retropubic tension-free vaginal sling. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:1597–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3011-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pikaart DP, Miklos JR, Moore RD. Laparoscopic removal of pubovaginal polypropylene tension-free tape slings. JSLS. 2006;10:220–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Marcus-Braun N, Theobald v P. Mesh removal following transvaginal mesh placement: a case series of 104 operations. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:423–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1050-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. Raj Dodia for help with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK

    Elizabeth J. Goodall, Rufus Cartwright, Emily C. Stratta, Simon R. Jackson & Natalia Price

Authors
  1. Elizabeth J. Goodall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rufus Cartwright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily C. Stratta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Simon R. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Natalia Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth J. Goodall.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical/review board approval

Not required (Local Audit and service development project).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goodall, E.J., Cartwright, R., Stratta, E.C. et al. Outcomes after laparoscopic removal of retropubic midurethral slings for chronic pain. Int Urogynecol J 30, 1323–1328 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3756-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3756-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation