Search

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to determine the risk factors that may contribute to the diagnosis of microscopic hematuria (MH) in women. METHODS This multicenter case-control study reviewed cases of women presenting to Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery sites with MH from 2010 to 2014. Microscopic hematuria was defined as 3 or more red blood cells per high power field in the absence of infection as indicated in the American Urologic Association guidelines. Controls were matched to cases in a 1:1 ratio and chart review of 10 risk factors was performed (urethral caruncle, pelvic organ prolapse, vaginal atrophy, personal or family history of nephrolithiasis, prior prolapse or incontinence surgery, past or current smoking, chemical exposure, family history of urologic malignancy, prior pelvic radiation, and prior alkylating chemotherapy). Odds ratios were performed to assess risk factors. RESULTS There were 493 cases and 501 controls from 8 Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery sites. Current smoking, a history of pelvic radiation, and a history of nephrolithiasis were all significant risk factors for MH (P < 0.05). Vaginal atrophy, menopausal status, and use of estrogen were not found to be risk factors for MH (P = 0.42, 0.83, and 0.80, respectively). When stratifying the quantity of MH, women with increased red blood cells per high power field were more likely to have significant findings on their imaging results. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that the risk factors for MH in women are current smoking, a history of pelvic radiation, and a history of nephrolithiasis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Transvaginal mesh has been utilized for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and urinary incontinence for many years. Recently there has been an increase in the number of mesh complications seen, especially at tertiary referral centers. This study aimed to evaluate the trends in patients presenting with mesh complications and how management has changed over time at a single institution. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on women who presented to our institution with complications related to the placement of transvaginal mesh between June 2009 and February 2013. Patients were identified through CPT codes for revision of a prosthetic vaginal graft or sling and/or if they had an evaluation including a translabial US for mesh. Only patients who had synthetic transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence were included in the analysis. The FDA warning update on transvaginal mesh was reported in 2011, therefore overall trends were divided into the time periods before and after June 2011. Demographics and variables were obtained from medical records. Statistical analysis was performed using t-tests and chi square analysis. RESULTS: There were 468 patients who presented with transvaginal mesh complications. Out of these patients, 420 went on to have surgery. The tables below display the results broken down before and after June 2011 CONCLUSIONS: After the FDA update in 2011, there has been an increasing number of referred cases of mesh complications. Operative time is slightly longer likely secondary to more cases of complete mesh removal. More patients are presenting with pain, dyspaureunia, complications of sacrocolpopexy and systemic complaints. There are less patients presenting with incontinence and mesh exposure.

(POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Many patients appear to have misconceptions regarding the use of synthetic mesh. The objective of this study was to evaluate patients’ understanding regarding the use of mesh in female reconstructive surgery. METHODS: A 25 question based survey was prospectively administered to new female patients presenting to a single academic institution specialty clinic. Patients were invited to participate if they were being seen for either SUI or POP. Established patients were excluded from participation. Demographics and responses were recorded and analyzed using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact. RESULTS: Surveys were administered to patients from March 2013 to November 2013. A total of 208 surveys were collected. The typical presenting patient was 60 years old, Caucasian (87%), married (62%), with at least a high school education (97%) and not currently employed (59%). The majority of patients (62%) surveyed were being evaluated for urinary incontinence which had not been previously treated. Patients were not necessarily aware of different types of incontinence. 104 patients (70%) obtained most of their information about mesh from television. The majority of patients said they were unsure if mesh used for SUI was different from that used for POP (65%), were aware of the FDA safety communication (61%), and believed there was a recall of mesh (50%). In patients who were aware of the FDA announcement, 58% believed there was a recall (p1⁄40.03). For patients who were unsure about different types of mesh use in SUI/POP surgery, they were also unsure or more likely to believe there was a recall (p