Jittima Manonai1, Ghazaleh Rostaminia2, Lindsay Denson2, S Abbas Shobeiri2. 1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Abstract
AIM: The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical and ultrasonographic findings of women who had three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound (EVUS) for the management of vaginal mesh complications. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients that had EVUS due to mesh complications at a tertiary care center. The clinical charts were reviewed. The stored 3D volumes were reviewed regarding mesh information by two examiners independently. The predictive value of physical examination for detection of vaginal mesh was calculated. Patient outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients presented to our center because of their, or their physicians' concern regarding mesh complications. Forty-one (51.9%) had vaginal/pelvic pain, and 51/62 (82.2%) of sexually active women experienced dyspareunia. According to ultrasonographic findings, mesh or sling was not demonstrated in six patients who believed they have had mesh/sling implantation. The positive predictive value for vaginal examination was 94.5% (95% CI: 84.9%-98.8%), negative predictive value was 12.5% (95% CI: 2.8%-32.4%), sensitivity was 72.2% (95% CI: 59.4%-81.2%), and specificity was 50.0% (95% CI: 12.4%-87.6%). Fifty-four patients were indicated for surgical treatment. Median postoperative review was 12 (range, 3-18) months and 38/53 (71.7%) patients were satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: The most common complaints of vaginal mesh complications were pain and dyspareunia. EVUS appeared to be helpful for assessing mesh presence, location, and extent including planning for surgical intervention.
AIM: The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical and ultrasonographic findings of women who had three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound (EVUS) for the management of vaginal mesh complications. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients that had EVUS due to mesh complications at a tertiary care center. The clinical charts were reviewed. The stored 3D volumes were reviewed regarding mesh information by two examiners independently. The predictive value of physical examination for detection of vaginal mesh was calculated. Patient outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients presented to our center because of their, or their physicians' concern regarding mesh complications. Forty-one (51.9%) had vaginal/pelvic pain, and 51/62 (82.2%) of sexually active women experienced dyspareunia. According to ultrasonographic findings, mesh or sling was not demonstrated in six patients who believed they have had mesh/sling implantation. The positive predictive value for vaginal examination was 94.5% (95% CI: 84.9%-98.8%), negative predictive value was 12.5% (95% CI: 2.8%-32.4%), sensitivity was 72.2% (95% CI: 59.4%-81.2%), and specificity was 50.0% (95% CI: 12.4%-87.6%). Fifty-four patients were indicated for surgical treatment. Median postoperative review was 12 (range, 3-18) months and 38/53 (71.7%) patients were satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: The most common complaints of vaginal mesh complications were pain and dyspareunia. EVUS appeared to be helpful for assessing mesh presence, location, and extent including planning for surgical intervention.