INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to compare the histological characteristics of pathological specimens of excised midurethral sling mesh and surrounding vaginal tissue in patients who presented preoperatively with pain and/or exposure of mesh to patients who underwent mesh excision for voiding dysfunction without pain and/or erosion. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study of women who underwent excision of midurethral sling mesh between 2008 and 2013. Three groups were identified: (1) voiding dysfunction without pain or exposure (control group), (2) pain and/or mesh exposure, and (3) voiding dysfunction with pain and/or mesh exposure. All original pathological specimens were rereviewed by one pathologist blinded to indication for excision and the previous pathology report. Degree of inflammation and fibrosis were recorded based on a 4-point scale along with the presence of giant cell reaction. RESULTS: A total of 130 subjects met inclusion criteria: 60 (46.2 %) with voiding dysfunction only, 21 (16.2 %) with pain/erosion, and 49 (37.7 %) with both pain/exposure and voiding dysfunction. The voiding dysfunction only group was found to have significantly higher levels of inflammation, median grade 2 (1-3), compared to the other two groups with a p value of 0.007. There were no statistical differences in fibrosis and giant cell reaction between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Midurethral sling mesh excised for voiding dysfunction demonstrates elevated levels of inflammation compared to mesh that is excised for pain and/or exposure. The vaginal tissue fibrosis and giant cell reaction are similar in patients who undergo mesh excision for voiding dysfunction and pain, and/or mesh exposure.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to compare the histological characteristics of pathological specimens of excised midurethral sling mesh and surrounding vaginal tissue in patients who presented preoperatively with pain and/or exposure of mesh to patients who underwent mesh excision for voiding dysfunction without pain and/or erosion. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study of women who underwent excision of midurethral sling mesh between 2008 and 2013. Three groups were identified: (1) voiding dysfunction without pain or exposure (control group), (2) pain and/or mesh exposure, and (3) voiding dysfunction with pain and/or mesh exposure. All original pathological specimens were rereviewed by one pathologist blinded to indication for excision and the previous pathology report. Degree of inflammation and fibrosis were recorded based on a 4-point scale along with the presence of giant cell reaction. RESULTS: A total of 130 subjects met inclusion criteria: 60 (46.2 %) with voiding dysfunction only, 21 (16.2 %) with pain/erosion, and 49 (37.7 %) with both pain/exposure and voiding dysfunction. The voiding dysfunction only group was found to have significantly higher levels of inflammation, median grade 2 (1-3), compared to the other two groups with a p value of 0.007. There were no statistical differences in fibrosis and giant cell reaction between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Midurethral sling mesh excised for voiding dysfunction demonstrates elevated levels of inflammation compared to mesh that is excised for pain and/or exposure. The vaginal tissue fibrosis and giant cell reaction are similar in patients who undergo mesh excision for voiding dysfunction and pain, and/or mesh exposure.
Authors: Holly E Richter; Michael E Albo; Halina M Zyczynski; Kimberly Kenton; Peggy A Norton; Larry T Sirls; Stephen R Kraus; Toby C Chai; Gary E Lemack; Kimberly J Dandreo; R Edward Varner; Shawn Menefee; Chiara Ghetti; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Salil Khandwala; Thomas A Rozanski; Harry Johnson; Joseph Schaffer; Anne M Stoddard; Robert L Holley; Charles W Nager; Pamela Moalli; Elizabeth Mueller; Amy M Arisco; Marlene Corton; Sharon Tennstedt; T Debuene Chang; E Ann Gormley; Heather J Litman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lisa M Pierce; Arundhati Rao; Shannon S Baumann; Jocylen E Glassberg; Thomas J Kuehl; Tristi W Muir Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Steven Kleeman; Mickey M Karram; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark D Walters; Sandip Vasavada; Mark Ellerkmann Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Michael E Albo; Heather J Litman; Holly E Richter; Gary E Lemack; Larry T Sirls; Toby C Chai; Peggy Norton; Stephen R Kraus; Halina Zyczynski; Kimberly Kenton; E Ann Gormley; John W Kusek Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alexis L Nolfi; Bryan N Brown; Rui Liang; Stacy L Palcsey; Michael J Bonidie; Steven D Abramowitch; Pamela A Moalli Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-04-16 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Elliot K Blau; Sarah A Adelstein; Katherine A Amin; Sharon J Durfy; Alvaro Lucioni; Kathleen C Kobashi; Una J Lee Journal: Investig Clin Urol Date: 2019-11-15