Publication:
Clinical predictors and risk factors for vaginal mesh extrusion

dc.contributor.authorUsah Khrucharoenen_US
dc.contributor.authorPatkawat Ramarten_US
dc.contributor.authorJudy Choien_US
dc.contributor.authorDiana Kangen_US
dc.contributor.authorJa Hong Kimen_US
dc.contributor.authorShlomo Razen_US
dc.contributor.otherScripps Healthen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of California, Irvineen_US
dc.contributor.otherDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLAen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-28T06:26:16Z
dc.date.available2019-08-28T06:26:16Z
dc.date.issued2018-02-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2017, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. Purposes: Our study aims to enhance the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis in patients with vaginal mesh extrusion following transvaginal mesh placement for pelvic organ prolapse using significant clinical parameters and risk factors. Methods: All patients who underwent vaginal mesh removal were retrospectively reviewed from January 2000 to May 2014. Eligible patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of vaginal mesh extrusion. Results: A total of 862 patients, 798 were included. 357 (44.7%) had evidence of vaginal mesh extrusion, and 441 (55.3%) had no evidence of vaginal mesh extrusion. The mean age of the vaginal mesh extrusion group was slightly higher than in the group without vaginal mesh extrusion (58.7 ± 11.2 vs. 56.4 ± 11.5, respectively; p = 0.002). From multivariate analysis, the significant clinical correlations for vaginal mesh extrusion were vaginal bleeding [60 (16.9) vs. 14 (3.2%), p < 0.001], hispareunia [48 (13.5) vs. 15 (3.4%), OR = 4.163, p < 0.001], and vaginal discharge [45 (12.6) vs. 18 (4.1%), p = 0.001]. The risk factors were multiple mesh implantations [218 (67.06) vs. 175 (39.68%), p < 0.001] and menopause [314 (88) vs. 364 (82.7%), p = 0.145]. Demographic data, including BMI, sexual activity, vaginal atrophy, both local and systemic hormonal use, smoking status, and hysterectomy status, were not significantly different, as well as the clinical symptoms including dyspareunia, vaginal infection, and symptomatic vaginal bulge. Conclusions: Vaginal bleeding, hispareunia, and vaginal discharge were the most significant clinical predictors for raising suspicion of vaginal mesh extrusion. Multiple mesh implantations were a significant risk factor for extrusion.en_US
dc.identifier.citationWorld Journal of Urology. Vol.36, No.2 (2018), 299-304en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00345-017-2137-yen_US
dc.identifier.issn14338726en_US
dc.identifier.issn07244983en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85034776197en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/46987
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85034776197&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleClinical predictors and risk factors for vaginal mesh extrusionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85034776197&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections