Introduction and hypothesis Although the current literature discusses mesh complications including pain, as well as suggesting different techniques for removing mesh, there is little literature regarding pain outcomes after surgical removal or revision. The purpose of this study is to determine if surgical removal or revision of vaginal mesh improves patient’s subjective complaints of pelvic pain associated with original placement of mesh. Methods After obtaining approval from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Institutional Review Board, a retrospective review of female patients with pain secondary to previous mesh placement who underwent excision or revision of vaginal mesh from January 2000 to August 2012 was performed. Patient age, relevant medical history including menopause status, previous hysterectomy, smoking status, and presence of diabetes, fibromyalgia, interstitial cystitis, and chronic pelvic pain, was obtained. Patients’ postoperative pain complaints were assessed. Results Of the 481 patients who underwent surgery for mesh revision, removal or urethrolysis, 233 patients met our inclusion criteria. One hundred and sixty-nine patients (73 %) reported that their pain improved, 19 (8 %) reported that their pain worsened, and 45 (19 %) reported that their pain remained unchanged after surgery. Prior history of chronic pelvic pain was associated with increased risk of failure of the procedure to relieve pain (OR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.12–0.64, p=0.003). Conclusions Excision or revision of vaginal mesh appears to be effective in improving patients’ pain symptoms most of the time. Patients with a history of chronic pelvic pain are at an increased risk of no improvement or of worsening pain.

Introduction This study sought to provide a preliminary assessment of whether spinally-mediated afferent hyperactivity (i.e. central sensitization) might contribute to manifestations of Overactive Bladder Syndrome (OAB) in women as indexed by elevated temporal summation of evoked heat pain stimuli. Methods We recruited 20 adult women with OAB who were planning to undergo interventional therapy for OAB with either onabotulinumtoxinA injection or sacral neuromodulation and 23 healthy controls without OAB symptoms to undergo quantitative sensory testing with cutaneous thermal pain temporal summation. The primary study outcome was the degree of temporal summation, as reflected in the magnitude of positive slope of the line fitted to the series of 10 stimuli at the 49°C target temperatures. Linear regression and analysis of covariance were utilized to compare the degree of temporal summation between study groups. Results The standardized slope of temporal summation trials for women with OAB was significantly higher than for Controls (beta = 3.43, 95% confidence interval = 0.6 – 6.2, p = .017). The adjusted means ± SE of the standardized temporal summation slopes for the full OAB and Control groups were 3.0 ± .5 (95% confidence interval = 2.0, 4.1) and 1.7 ± .5 (95% confidence interval = .7, 2.7), respectively. Conclusion In this preliminary study, we demonstrated that women with OAB refractory to primary and secondary therapies exhibited greater thermal cutaneous temporal summation than women without OAB symptoms. This suggests that central sensitization, indexed by temporal summation, may be an underlying factor contributing to OAB in some women.

To determine intraabdominal pressure (IAP) in women during CrossFit and to determine whether parity, age, or CrossFit experience affects IAP during CrossFit exercises, we evaluated 10 women: 5 experienced and active CrossFitters and 5 who were not regularly engaged in CrossFit. A Laborie urodynamics abdominal pressure probe with the Goby wireless system measured IAP during 10 repetitions of 13 different CrossFit exercises. Women had a mean age of 36 years. A significant difference was found between mean peak IAP of the 5 parous vs the 5 nulliparous women ( = 0.009). Experience with CrossFit did not affect mean peak IAP achieved with exercise. In some exercises, there was a significant change in IAP as participants progressed through repetitions ( = 0.003 for back squats and 0.04 for sit-ups). Participants achieved IAP values that were markedly higher than those previously published.

No abstract