LAUSR

ABSTRACT Objectives: To identify various predisposing factors, the clinical presentation, and the management of vaginal mesh-related complications, with special emphasis on mesh exposure and the indications for and results of vaginal mesh removal. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using a search strategy based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses criteria. PubMed was queried for studies regarding aetiology, risk factors, and management of vaginal mesh exposure from 1 January 2008 to June 2018. Full-text articles were obtained for eligible abstracts. Relevant articles were included, and the cited references were used to identify relevant articles not previously included. Results: A total of 102 abstracts were identified from the PubMed search criteria. An additional 45 studies were identified based on review of the cited references. After applying eligibility criteria and excluding impertinent articles, 58 studies were included in the final analysis. Conclusion: Numerous studies have found at least some degree of symptomatic improvement regardless of the amount of mesh removed. Focal areas of exposure or pain can be successfully managed with partial mesh removal with low rates of complications. With partial mesh removal, many patients will ultimately require subsequent mesh removal procedures. For this reason, complete mesh excision is an alternative for patients with diffuse vaginal pain, large mesh exposure, and extrusion of mesh into adjacent viscera. However, when considering complete mesh removal, it is important to counsel patients regarding possible complications of removal and the increased risk of recurrent stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse postoperatively. Abbreviations: MUS: midurethral sling; OR: odds ratio; POP: pelvic organ prolapse; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses; SUI: stress urinary incontinence; TOT: transobturator; TVT: tension-free vaginal tape