You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Female Pelvic Medicine: Female Incontinence: Therapy III1 Apr 2018MP75-02 SYNTHETIC MID-URETHRAL SLING COMPLICATIONS: DO PATIENTS BENEFIT FROM SLING REVISION? Elizabeth Dray, Anne Pelletier Cameron, Erin Crosby, Ashley Grable, J Quentin Clemens, John Stoffel, Priyanka Gupta, and Paholo Barboglio-Romo Elizabeth DrayElizabeth Dray More articles by this author , Anne Pelletier CameronAnne Pelletier Cameron More articles by this author , Erin CrosbyErin Crosby More articles by this author , Ashley GrableAshley Grable More articles by this author , J Quentin ClemensJ Quentin Clemens More articles by this author , John StoffelJohn Stoffel More articles by this author , Priyanka GuptaPriyanka Gupta More articles by this author , and Paholo Barboglio-RomoPaholo Barboglio-Romo More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.2094AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Synthetic mid-urethral slings (MUS) are the most commonly performed treatment for stress urinary incontinence in women. While these procedures are typically safe and effective, complications do occur. The goal of our study was to define the presentation and outcomes of patients who underwent revision/removal of synthetic MUS at our institution. METHODS We performed a retrospective review of 432 women who underwent revision of a synthetic mid-urethral sling at our institution between 2005 and 2016. Patients with a history of vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse were excluded from our analysis. The outcomes assessed were AUA SI, Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index (M-ISI), pad use and post-void residual (PVR). RESULTS Average patient age was 53 and parity was 2.5. The majority of patients had a TVT (172) followed by TOT (182) and minisling (40). The remainder of slings were MUS of unidentified type. Eighty-one patients had undergone prior mesh revisions elsewhere. Patients presented with four primary complaints: mesh exposure or erosion, pain or dyspareunia, incontinence and bladder outlet obstruction. Most patients presented with at least two categories of mesh-related complaints, with the most common presentations being incontinence/pain (84 patients) and mesh exposure/pain/incontinence (74 patients). Patients most commonly underwent partial or complete excision of the vaginal portion of their mesh (110 and 248 patients respectively). Multiple mesh revisions were performed on 43 patients. Average follow-up was 14 months. The majority of patients (302) did not require further incontinence procedures at our institution. Forty-one patients had a sling placed at the time of mesh revision and 89 patients underwent procedures for incontinence at a later date. Clinically and statistically significant improvement was demonstrated on both validated questionnaires postoperatively. The number of patients reporting pain or dyspareunia declined (p<0.001), as well as the number reporting incontinence of any kind (p=0.006). PVR improved from a preoperative average of 91 cc to 48 cc postoperatively (p=0.001) and average pad use improved from 2.1 pads per day to 1.5 pads per day(p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS Despite complex patient presentations, subjective and objective urologic symptom measures significantly improve following MUS revision. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e1008 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Elizabeth Dray More articles by this author Anne Pelletier Cameron More articles by this author Erin Crosby More articles by this author Ashley Grable More articles by this author J Quentin Clemens More articles by this author John Stoffel More articles by this author Priyanka Gupta More articles by this author Paholo Barboglio-Romo More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...