Author's Accepted Manuscript Prolapse Recurrence After Transvaginal Mesh Removal T. Rawlings , R.S. Lavelle , B. Coskun , F. Alhalabi , P.E. Zimmern
PII: DOI: Reference:
S0022-5347(15)04291-3 10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.080 JURO 12720
To appear in: The Journal of Urology Accepted Date: 11 June 2015 Please cite this article as: Rawlings T, Lavelle R, Coskun B, Alhalabi F, Zimmern P, Prolapse Recurrence After Transvaginal Mesh Removal, The Journal of Urology® (2015), doi: 10.1016/ j.juro.2015.06.080. DISCLAIMER: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our subscribers we are providing this early version of the article. The paper will be copy edited and typeset, and proof will be reviewed before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to The Journal pertain.
Embargo Policy All article content is under embargo until uncorrected proof of the article becomes available online. We will provide journalists and editors with full-text copies of the articles in question prior to the embargo date so that stories can be adequately researched and written. The standard embargo time is 12:01 AM ET on that date. Questions regarding embargo should be directed to
[email protected].
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
PROLAPSE RECURRENCE AFTER TRANSVAGINAL MESH REMOVAL. Rawlings T, Lavelle RS, Coskun B, Alhalabi F, Zimmern PE
Keywords:
pelvic organ prolapse; reconstructive procedure
recurrence;
Manuscript word count: 2556
removal;
Philippe E. Zimmern, MD UT Southwestern Medical Center 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. Dallas, TX 75390-9110 Tel: 214-648-9397 Fax: 214-648-3839
[email protected] TE D
Disclosures: NONE for all authors Author’s participation:
mesh
M AN U
Corresponding Author:
transvaginal
SC
Abstract word count: 243
RI PT
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Dallas, Texas
Tanner Rawlings: Manuscript writing, data collection/management, data analysis
2.
Rebecca S. Lavelle: Manuscript writing, data collection/management, data analysis
3.
Burhan Coskun: Data collection/management
4.
Feras Alhalabi: Protocol development, data collection/management
AC C
5.
EP
1.
Philippe E. Zimmern: Protocol/Project development/manuscript writing/editing
Brief Summary:
A longitudinal analysis of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after transvaginal mesh removal, with intermediate follow-up.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of pelvic organ prolapse (POP)
RI PT
recurrence after transvaginal mesh removal (TMR). METHODS: Following IRB approval, a longitudinally collected database of women undergoing TMR for complications after transvaginal mesh placement with at least 1 year minimum follow-up was queried for POP recurrence. Recurrent POP was defined
SC
as either > Stage 1 on examination or need for re-operation at the site of TMR.
M AN U
Outcome measures were based on POP-Q at last visit. Patients were grouped into 3 groups: 1 (Recurrent POP in same compartment as TMR), 2(Persistent POP), 3(POP in different compartment as TMR).
RESULTS: From 2007-2013, 52 of 73 women met inclusion criteria. 73% presented
TE D
with multiple indications for TMR. Mean interval between insertion and removal was 45 months (10-165). Overall mean follow-up after TMR was 30 months (12-84). Group 1 (POP Recurrence) rate was 15% (6/40). Four patients underwent surgery for recurrent
EP
POP at mean 7 months (5-10). Two patients chose observation. The rate of POP Persistence (Group 2) was 23% (12/52) with 3 patients undergoing POP re-operation at
AC C
mean 10 months (8-12). Group 3 (De novo/ Different compartment POP) rate was 6% (3/52), with 1 undergoing surgical repair at 52 months. CONCLUSIONS: At a mean of 2.5 years follow-up, 62% (32/52) did not have recurrent or persistent prolapse after TMR, and 85% (44/52) did not undergo any further procedures for POP. Specifically for POP in the same compartment as TMR, 12% had recurrence with 8% undergoing POP repair.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3
INTRODUCTION Vaginal placement of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair was introduced as early as 20001. A randomized control trial in 2011 comparing native tissue
RI PT
repair to transvaginal mesh kit placement for POP repair reported superior performance for mesh kits in anatomic and functional outcomes2. However, in this report, mesh complications were noted, thus raising concern for this surgical modality in the long-
SC
term. Since then, concerns for complications related to transvaginal mesh implantation such as mesh erosion, dyspareunia, or pelvic pain have mounted. Escalating numbers
M AN U
of mesh complication reports led to two FDA warnings in 2008 and 2011 which cautioned the public on the use of transvaginal mesh for POP 3,4.
In our tertiary care center, we have been involved in transvaginal mesh removal (TMR)
TE D
for nearly a decade and have developed expertise in meshology, a fast-growing field in the management of POP mesh and synthetic midurethral sling complications such as extrusion, pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and reoperations5. Recently, we reported on a
EP
series of women who underwent sling and vaginal mesh removal for the sole indication of pain only. Using a visual analog scale administered pre and post-operatively, we
AC C
observed a decrease in pain level from 7.9 to 0.9 in 69 patients with 67% achieving a pain level of zero post-operatively6.
In preoperative counseling, patients frequently ask about POP recurrence after TMR, and there is a dearth of outcome data on this topic. Furthermore, there is no established standard of care for mesh or biologic replacement at the time of TMR. Some argue it is
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4
best to remove the mesh that prompted the complication and let the tissues heal primarily at the risk of having to re-operate to correct a secondary or persistent POP later on. Others prefer to complete the mesh removal and then utilize native tissue
RI PT
prolapse repair and/or add a new mesh substitute. Bio-absorbable mesh is generally favored as many of these complicated patients fear replacement with another synthetic material. Our approach has been to remove the synthetic mesh material and as much
SC
as possible of its extension arms, without any additional mesh interposition or concurrent prolapse procedures. Based on this decision, we reviewed our POP
M AN U
recurrence rate after TMR for all indications of POP mesh removal.
METHODS
This is a retrospective analysis of an IRB approved, longitudinally collected database of
TE D
women undergoing TMR for complications. The database was queried for POP recurrence after TMR. All primary mesh placement was performed at outside institutions, and all TMR surgeries were performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary
EP
referral center. Patients undergoing excision of vaginal mesh (not mesh slings or midurethral synthetic tapes) via vaginal approach for mesh-related complications were
AC C
included. Patients who had less than one year follow up and underwent vaginal mesh removal of abdominally placed mesh were excluded. Data collected included: patient demographics, type of mesh excised, indications for excision, site and type of excision, concomitant procedures, post-operative complications, time to prolapse recurrence, and type of POP re-operation. The recent mesh complication and classification system from International Urogynecological Association/International Continence Society (IUGA/ICS)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5
was utilized. This is a classification of complications directly related to the insertion of synthetic material with a coding system based on C (category), T (time) in relation to the primary surgery, and S (site) of the complication.7 Note that this review focused on POP
are beyond the scope of this manuscript.
RI PT
compartment recurrence only, and other outcomes such as pelvic pain or dyspareunia
SC
The surgical technique for transvaginal mesh excision has already been reported6. Briefly, the procedure included removal of the vaginal mesh as well as the lateral
M AN U
extensions of the mesh arms, all the way to the obturator foramen or sacrospinous ligament fixation sites (See Figure 1). A maximal amount of mesh was removed within reasonable margins of safety to avoid injuries to adjacent organs (bladder, ureter, rectum). Following mesh removal, vaginal incisions were closed primarily with no
TE D
additional biologic or mesh interposition. After anterior and/or apical mesh removal, cystoscopy was performed to ensure no bladder or ureteral injury. For posterior mesh removal, rectal packing was placed at the beginning of the procedure to mold the
EP
rectum, and digital rectal examination was performed to confirm no rectal injury at the end of the procedure. Each mesh segment removed was photographed and sent to
AC C
pathology for medico-legal documentation (see Figure 1d,e). Patients were discharged home on the day of surgery or the following day, on limited pain medication, preferably without codeine, and stool softeners to minimize postoperative constipation. Vaginal packing and foley catheter were routinely left in place postoperatively and removed prior to discharge on the day of surgery or the following morning. The decision for admission
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6
was based on the length of procedure, time of procedure in the day, patient age and comorbidities.
RI PT
Outcomes were measured at serial intervals (6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and yearly thereafter) and included physical examination and evaluation for possible complications and/or POP recurrence. Anatomical outcomes were assessed using the pelvic organ
SC
prolapse quantification system (POP-Q). Recurrent POP was defined as either > Stage 1 on examination or need for re-operation at the site of TMR. Apical vaginal prolapse
M AN U
was defined as any descent of the vaginal cuff or cervix below a point which is 2 cm less than the total vaginal length about the plane of the hymen. Outcome measures were based on POP-Q at last visit and were compared with POP-Q points preoperatively.
Secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications such as
TE D
bleeding requiring transfusion, bladder or ureteric injuries, rectal injury, were tallied. Postoperative complications were reported using the Clavien classification of surgical
EP
complications and were inclusive of adverse events within 30 days of TMR.
Based on recent IUGA/ICS POP outcome guidelines8 three distinct POP recurrence
AC C
groups were identified. Group 1 (POP Recurrence) included patients with symptomatic POP recurrence after TMR and in the same TMR compartment. Group 2 (POP persistence) included patients who presented with persistent POP despite transvaginal mesh placement. Group 3 (De novo/ Different compartment POP) consisted of patients who developed secondary POP in a different compartment than where the TMR was performed. The overall POP recurrence after TMR was calculated by tabulating the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7
results for Groups 1 and 2. The IUGA/ICS document referenced above also provided for follow-up periods ranging from early (5 years).8 Our series focused on intermediate and longer follow-up due
Symptomatic patients wishing for POP recurrence repair underwent anterior vaginal wall
SC
suspension (AVWS) with cystocele repair9 or mesh sacrocolpopexy (MS) for anterior/apical or triple compartment prolapse10,11. The women with less than 1 year
M AN U
follow-up were contacted by phone to determine if they have POP symptoms (bulge or pressure) and if they underwent subsequent POP surgical repair after TMR.
Descriptive statistics including means and ranges were obtained with SPSS Version
RESULTS
TE D
19.0 (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY).
EP
From 2007 – 2013, 73 women were followed longitudinally after prolapse mesh removals, of which 52 met all inclusion criteria. Twelve had less than one year follow-up
AC C
and 9 underwent an abdominal approach. Of the 12 women with less than 1 year followup, 9 were able to be contacted by telephone. Per report, none had recurrent POP symptoms or POP procedures since their TMR.
Baseline patient characteristics and demographics are reported in Table 1. No women had greater than Stage II POP at baseline, and no women had apical prolapse at
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 8
baseline.
The
most
common
indications
for
TMR
in
our
patients
were
dyspareunia/vaginal pain, mesh extrusion, and pelvic pain, with 73% of women presenting with multiple indications. Patient mesh complication characteristics classified
RI PT
according to the IUGA/ICS guidelines11 are listed in Table 2. Mean interval between mesh placement and removal was 45 months (10-165). The overall mean follow-up after TMR for all 52 patients was 30 months (12 -84). Based on operative records, mesh
SC
types excised included Prolift (Ethicon): 23, Perigee (American Medical Systems): 8, Avaulta (Bard Medical): 7, Elevate (American Medical Systems): 3, Pinnacle (Boston
M AN U
Scientific): 2, Prosima (Ethicon): 1 and unknown (8) and the sites of mesh excision were summarized in Table 1.
The rate of POP recurrence after TMR and in the same TMR compartment (Group 1)
TE D
was 15% (n=6/40) with a mean follow-up of 39 months (22 – 75). Four of those patients underwent surgery for recurrent POP at a mean of 7 months (5-10). The re-operation rate for POP recurrence was 10% (n=4/40). The location of mesh excision, recurrence
EP
characteristics and procedures performed for Group 1 (POP Recurrence) are summarized in Table 3. Of the two patients who chose observation for their recurrent
AC C
prolapse, one had apical TMR with apical recurrence (Initial exam was limited due to narrowing and pain, so POPQ was not fully recorded but reportedly there was no apical prolapse from limited vaginal exam. Post TMR POPQ Points: C -2, TVL 6) and the other had anterior and posterior TMR removal, with only anterior prolapse recurrence. The number of patients in the persistent prolapse group (Group 2) was 23% (n=12/52). The re-operation rate in this subset was 25% (3/12) with a mean follow-up of 30 months (12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 9
– 84). Of these 12 patients with persistent prolapse, three underwent native tissue repair with AVWS for persistent anterior compartment prolapse at 8, 10, and 12 months. One patient had recurrent prolapse at the apex after AVWS and subsequently
RI PT
underwent a MS.
The rate of de novo or prolapse in a different compartment after TMR (Group 3) was 6%
SC
(n=3/52) with a mean follow-up of 30 months (15 – 53). Two patients chose observation and one underwent secondary POP repair. The two patients that chose observation had
M AN U
posterior TMR but secondary anterior compartment prolapse developed later on. The patient who chose surgery had anterior and apical TMR but had posterior compartment POP. This patient underwent MS at 52 months.
TE D
Overall, 62% (32/52) did not have recurrent or persistent prolapse after TMR, and 85% (44/52) did not undergo any further procedures for POP. Thirty-six patients had intermediate term follow-up (1-3 years), 12 patients had late follow-up (3-5 years), and 4
EP
patients had very late follow-up (>5 years).8
AC C
One intraoperative complication was a minuscule ureteral tear during an anterior mesh removal. The injury site was recognized with IV indigo carmine. The ureter was stented, the injury was repaired transvaginally with a small absorbable suture, and the perivesical tissues were reapproximated underneath the ureter to protect the repair. After stent removal 6 weeks later, a renal ultrasound was obtained and then a follow-up intravenous pyelogram was performed 6 months later, and all these imaging studies
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 10
were read as normal. Patient underwent ureteroscopy for stone treatment 2 years later with no ureteric issues. There were three 30 day complications, consisting of 1 Clavien I (clogged catheter requiring irrigation) and 2 Clavien II (vaginal yeast infection and
RI PT
urinary tract infection requiring antifungal/antibiotic treatment).
DISCUSSION
SC
In the current era of vaginal mesh complications, the risk of POP after TMR has not been well established and continues to be a patient and surgeon concern. In addition,
M AN U
the TMR technique and concurrent repair has not been standardized. Our study addresses the risk of POP recurrence after TMR without addition of mesh or biologic material or native tissue repair at the time of TMR. We found that 62% of women did not have recurrent prolapse after TMR, and 85% did not undergo any further procedures for
TE D
POP at a mean overall follow-up of 30 months (12-83). The patients who chose to defer corrective surgery for prolapse recurrence in our study may have done so for a variety of reasons including fear of further surgery after previous mesh surgery and/or
EP
additional surgical complications, or less bother from POP symptoms. However, we did not have access to the patient’s preoperative POPQ examinations prior to their mesh
AC C
procedures at outside institutions to compare their stage of prolapse and bother.
Table 412,13,14,15 summarizes four current series reporting on POP recurrence after mesh removal. As mentioned earlier there is no consensus on concurrent POP repair at the time of TMR and the 4 summarized series have variable rates of concurrent repairs. The excision technique performed in each study varied as well. The series by Jeffrey et
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 11
al. performed complete excisions while the other series performed a mixture of complete and partial excisions. Follow-up length varied from 0 to 24 months with the majority of patients having less than one year follow-up. The recurrence rates varied
RI PT
from 12% to 19%, but the series by Jeffrey et al. reported as high as 33% in the patients that followed up at 12 months. Of the three series that performed complete and partial mesh excisions, two reported that recurrent POP was more common after complete
SC
mesh excision. Retreatment rate was reported in 3 of the 4 series as 0 to 17%.
M AN U
In our study, of the patients who underwent a secondary POP repair, the majority underwent that surgical repair after 6 months follow-up from TMR. Potential reasons for the discrepancy in recurrence and retreatment rates between previous studies and our cohort are the increased length of follow-up and the absence of concurrent POP repairs
TE D
at the time of TMR. Our practice is to remove the mesh without concurrent repair. With 85% of women having vaginal pain/dyspareunia as an indication for TMR, we have preferred to remove as much mesh material as possible and not add any additional
EP
material or perform native tissue repair at the time of TMR. Furthermore, the introduction of the ICS/IUGA POP outcome reporting guidelines8 has streamlined
AC C
outcomes reporting in this field. Without this standardization it is difficult to compare our results to many recent studies where this classification was not utilized.
Strengths of our study include the intermediate or greater duration of follow-up, consistent TMR technique by the same surgical team, and outcome reporting using recent guidelines on mesh complications and POP outcomes. Our study limitations
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 12
include a non-randomized design with a control group and a tertiary care practice with patients coming from out of state resulting in some loss to follow-up. Though we had 12 patients who did not meet inclusion criteria due to follow-up less than 12 months, we
RI PT
were able to contact 75% (9/12) of the patients by telephone. No patients reported prolapse symptoms or POP repairs after TMR. Another limitation is the inability to conclusively state that our approach resulted in complete or partial mesh removal.
SC
Though we removed the maximal amount of vaginal mesh within reasonable margins of safety through a transvaginal approach, there is no gold standard imaging modality
M AN U
available to verify or quantify the amount of mesh remaining in place. We also did not use a validated questionnaire to provide a composite recurrence definition. Instead, as other studies have done12,14,15, we defined failure based on a strict anatomic definition
CONCLUSIONS
TE D
of recurrence or need for reoperation.
In the current literature, there is no consensus on TMR technique as well as concurrent
EP
prolapse procedures at the time of TMR. In our cohort of patients undergoing TMR without concurrent prolapse procedures, POP recurrence at the site of TMR was seen
AC C
in 12% at an intermediate follow-up. However, 62% of patients had no recurrence in any compartment following TMR and 85% did not undergo a secondary POP repair. This data could be used to counsel patients on the risks for POP reoperation following TMR alone.
References
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 13
1.
Migliari, R., M. De Angelis, G. Madeddu, et al. "Tension-free vaginal mesh repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse." European urology 38, no. 2 (2000): 151.
2.
Altman D, Väyrynen t, Engh ME, et al. "Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal
RI PT
mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse." New England Journal of Medicine 364, no. 19 (2011): 1826-1836. 3.
FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal
incontinence.
Issued
October
2,
SC
placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary 2008.
Available
at:
ions/ucm061976.htm. 4.
M AN U
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotificat
FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary
TE D
incontinence. For updated information about surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Issued July 13, 2011.
EP
Available at:
http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262435.htm.
Lee D, Bacsu C, and Zimmern PE. "Meshology: a fast-growing field involving
AC C
5.
mesh and/or tape removal procedures and their outcomes." Expert review of medical devices 0 (2014): 1-16.
6.
Hou JC, Alhalabi F, Lemack GE, Zimmern PE. Outcome of transvaginal mesh
and tape removed for pain only. J Urol. 2014 Sep;192(3):856-60 7.
Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE et al. "An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 14
classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery." Neurourology and urodynamics 30, no. 1 (2011): 2-12. Toozs‐Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, et al. "An International Urogynecological
RI PT
8.
Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ
9.
SC
prolapse." Neurourology and urodynamics 31, no. 4 (2012): 415-421.
Wilson T, Zimmern PE: Anterior Vaginal Wall Suspension. In: Female Urology,
M AN U
Urogynecology, and Voiding Dysfunction. Edited by A. Vasavada, Sand, Raz. New York: Marcel Dekker, vol. 1, pp. 283-290, 2005 10.
Belsante M, Murray S, Dillon B, and Zimmern PE. "Mid term outcome of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy." The Canadian journal of urology 20, no. 1 (2013): 6656-
11.
TE D
6661.
Gilleran JP and Zimmern PE. "Abdominal mesh sacrocolpopexy for recurrent triple‐compartment pelvic organ prolapse." BJU international 103, no. 8 (2009):
12.
EP
1090-1094.
George A, Mattingly M, Woodman P, et al. "Recurrence of Prolapse After
AC C
Transvaginal Mesh Excision." Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery
19, no. 4 (2013): 202-205.
13.
Marcus-Braun N, von Theobald P. "Mesh removal following transvaginal mesh
placement: a case series of 104 operations." International urogynecology journal
21, no. 4 (2010): 423-430.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15
14.
Jeffery ST, and Nieuwoudt A. "Beyond the complications: medium-term anatomical, sexual and functional outcomes following removal of trocar-guided
journal 23, no. 10 (2012): 1391-1396..
Tijdink MM, Vierhout ME, Heesakkers JP, et al. "Surgical management of meshrelated complications after prior pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh."
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
International urogynecology journal 22, no. 11 (2011): 1395-1404.
AC C
15.
RI PT
transvaginal mesh. A retrospective cohort study." International urogynecology
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 16
FIGURE LEGENDS Figure 1:
Intraoperative Views of Anterior Compartment TMR Surgical Technique. a: Inverted U marking of vaginal incision. b: Anterior Mesh visualized
RI PT
after anterior vaginal flap dissection. c: Bladder wall after mesh excision.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
d/e: Mesh fragments.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1: Baseline Patient Characteristics and POPQ Measurements Mean age (±SD)
58 (±10)
Median parity (Range)
2 (0-6)
Mean BMI (±SD)
28 (±6) 39 (78%)
RI PT
Post-menopausal patients (n=50)* Hormone replacement therapy (n=51)*
21 (41%)
Patients reporting sexual activity (n=50)*
24 (48%)
Indication for TMR
(N)
44 (85%)
SC
Dyspareunia/Vaginal Pain Mesh Extrusion
33 (63%)
Pelvic Pain
20 (38%) 1 (2%)
Rectal Pain Groin Pain Defecatory problems POPQ Before Mesh Excision Mean Ba Point (±SD) Mean Bp Point (±SD) Stage II Anterior compartment Posterior compartment Apical compartment
TE D
Baseline POP Before Mesh Excision
M AN U
Buttocks Pain
TMR Locations
AC C
Anterior
EP
Stage III or Stage IV
2 (4%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%) -2.5 (±0.8) -2.8 (±0.7) 12 (23%) 8 (15%) 4 (8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) (N) 13 (25%)
Anterior & Posterior
6 (12%)
Anterior & Apex
6 (12%)
Posterior
8 (15%)
Apex
16 (31%)
Anterior, Posterior, & Apex
2 (4%)
Apex & Posterior
1 (2%)
* (n= number of patients who had baseline information available)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2: Frequency Table of IUGA/ICS Complication Classification Frequency Category Total Explanation of symptoms 1
1Bc-T1-S1
1
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, pain during sexual intercourse
1Bc-T2-S1
4
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, pain during sexual intercourse
1Bc-T2-S2
1
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, pain during sexual intercourse
1Bc-T3-S1
3
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, pain during sexual intercourse
1Bc-T4-S1
2
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, pain during sexual intercourse
1Be-T1-S1
1
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, spontaneous pain
1Be-T1-S5
1
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, spontaneous pain
1Be-T2-S1
2
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, spontaneous pain
1Be-T2-S1
1
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, spontaneous pain
1Be-T2-S5
1
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, spontaneous pain
1Be-T3-S1
2
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, spontaneous pain
1Be-T3-S1
1
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, spontaneous pain
1Be-T3-S4
1
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, spontaneous pain
1Be-T4-S1
1
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, spontaneous pain
1Be-T4-S5
1
1B-T1-S1
1
C2
2Aa-T3-S1
1
1
C3
3Aa-T4-S1
4
31
3Bc-T1-S1
5
3Bc-T2-S1
1
3Bc-T3-S1
6
3Bc-T4-S1
9
3Be-T2-S1
1
Mesh exposure >1 cm, spontaneous pain
3Be-T3-S1
2
3Be-T3-S1
1
3Be-T3-S5
1
3Dc-T4-S1
1
6B-T3-S4
2
Total
Asymptomatic wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh
SC
Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, spontaneous pain Wrinkling or shrinkage of the mesh, symptomatic, unspecified
Mesh exposure ≤1 cm, asymptomatic Mesh exposure >1 cm, asymptomatic
Mesh exposure >1 cm, pain during sexual intercourse Mesh exposure >1 cm, pain during sexual intercourse Mesh exposure >1 cm, pain during sexual intercourse Mesh exposure >1 cm, pain during sexual intercourse
TE D
C6
24
RI PT
1Aa-T2-S1
Mesh exposure >1 cm, spontaneous pain Mesh exposure >1 cm, spontaneous pain Mesh exposure >1 cm, spontaneous pain Mesh exposure >1 cm, abscess, pain during sexual intercourse
2
Skin and/or Musculoskeletal pain, spontaneous
58*
EP
C1
Code
M AN U
Category
*58 codes were given to 52 patients, 6 patients were assigned two codes in different categories C: Classification, T: Time, S: Site
C1,2,3: Vaginal, C4: Urinary tract, C5: Rectal, C6: Skin/musculoskeletal, C7: Patient compromise
AC C
T1: Intraoperative to 48 hrs, T2: 48 hrs to 2 mo, T3: 2 -12 mo T4: >12 mo S1: Vaginal: suture line, S2: Vaginal: away from suture line, S3: Trocar passage, S4: Skin or musculoskeletal, S5: Intra-abdominal
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 3: Group 1 POP Recurrence Characteristics (in women who underwent secondary POP repair) Recurrences (n)
Site
Procedure
Time to POP repair
Initial
Post-op
RI PT
TMR Locations
Last visit
Ba
Bp
Ba
Bp
Ba
Bp
-2
-3
-1
-3
-3
-3
1
Anterior
AVWS
5 months
Anterior & Posterior
1
Anterior
MS (1)
6 months
-2
-3
0
-2
-3
-2
1
Anterior
AVWS (1)
8 months
-3
-3
-1
-2
-2
-1
1
Anterior
AVWS
10 months
-3
-3
-1
-3
-2
-3
AVWS: Anterior Vaginal Wall Suspension
b
MS: Mesh Sacrocolpopexy
AC C
EP
TE D
a
M AN U
Anterior & Apex
SC
Anterior
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 4: Series Reporting on POP Recurrence after Mesh Removal Marcus-Braun et al.13
Tijdink et al.15
Jeffrey et al14
George et al.12
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
TMR (n)
70
75
21
71
Concurrent Repair
No
17% n=14
100%
38% (27/71)
Complete n=57
Complete n=30
a
Partial n=14
Partial n=51
b
SC
Excision Technique
RI PT
Study
Complete 37% (26/71)
Complete Partial 63% (44/71)
Follow-up
M AN U
6 weeks (n= 20)
6 mo
6 mo (mean)
(19 patients lost to f/u)
Recurrence Rate
Recurrence Complete vs. Partial Retreatment Rate
c
19% (8/42)
Not reported
9/11 anterior 2/11 posterior
POPQ ≥ Stage II or ≥ 1 POPQ Stage increase from persistent POP
POPQ ≥ Stage II POP (despite symptoms)
POPQ ≥ Stage II, reoperation for prolapse, or postop pessary use
TE D
Not defined
24 mo (n=3)
8/9 anterior
EP
Recurrence Definition
8 anterior
39 wks (mean) 12 mo (n=6)
Range: 0-50
AC C
Recurrence Locations
6 mo (n=15)
d
6 wks: 5% (n = 1/20) 6 mo 13 % (n = 2/15)
12% (9/75)
d
15.5% (n=11/71) 12 mo 33% (n=2/6)
d
24 mo: 0%
7 after complete 1 after partial
Complete 29% Partial 5%
Not reported
Not reported
17% (7/42)
Not reported
0%
1.40%
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
a
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Patients who underwent sling removal with TMR are reported together b 6 patients underwent multiple excisions c (42 = # of anterior mesh removal) d No patients reported POP symptoms despite anatomic recurrence
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TMR
Transvaginal mesh removal
IRB
Institutional Review Board
POP-Q
Pelvic organ prolapse quantification system
AVWS
Anterior vaginal wall suspension
IUGA
International Urogynecological Association
ICS
International Continence Society
MS
Mesh sacrocolpopexy
SC
Pelvic organ prolapse
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
POP
RI PT
KEY OF DEFINITIONS