Robotic Excision of Intravesical Mesh Following Transvaginal Mesh-Based Prolapse Repair.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We describe the surgical management of intravesical mesh perforation following transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: A 73-year-old woman presented with intravesical mesh perforation 17 years following transvaginal mesh-based prolapse repair at an outside hospital. The patient presented with intermittent hematuria and recurrent urinary tract infections. Cystoscopy demonstrated an approximately 3-cm area of intravesical mesh with associated stone spanning from the bladder neck through the left trigone and ureteral orifice. A robotic-assisted transvesical mesh excision and left ureteroneocystostomy was carried out. Robotic-assisted repair was performed transvesically via transverse bladder dome cystotomy. Dissection was carried out circumferentially around the mesh in the vesicovaginal plane, including a 1-cm margin of healthy tissue. The eroded mesh was excised, and the vaginal wall and bladder were closed with running absorbable sutures. Given the location of the mesh excision and repair, a left ureteral reimplantation was performed. The transverse cystotomy was closed and retrograde bladder filling with methylene blue-stained saline confirmed watertight repairs, with no vaginal extravasation. RESULTS: The patient was discharged the following morning and had an uneventful recovery, including transurethral indwelling catheter removal at 2 weeks after CT cystogram and subsequent ureteral stent removal at 6 weeks postoperatively. At 2-month follow-up she had no new urinary symptoms or obstruction of the ureteral reimplantation on renal ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: A robotic-assisted approach is a feasible option for managing transvaginal prolapse mesh perforation into the bladder. Pelvic surgeons must be well equipped to handle transvaginal mesh complications in a patient-specific manner.

Validation of the Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification score in children: a single-institution experience at a level 1 pediatric trauma center.

OBJECTIVE: The Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification (SLIC) score has not been previously validated for a pediatric population. The authors compared the SLIC treatment recommendations for pediatric subaxial cervical spine trauma with real-world pediatric spine surgery practice. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study at a pediatric level 1 trauma center was conducted in patients < 18 years of age evaluated for trauma from 2012 to 2021. An SLIC score was calculated for each patient, and the subsequent recommendations were compared with actual treatment delivered. Percentage misclassification, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were calculated. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-three pediatric patients with trauma were included. Twenty-five patients (10.3%) underwent surgery and 218 were managed conservatively. The median SLIC score was 2 (interquartile range = 2). Sixteen patients (6.6%) had an SLIC score of 4, for which either conservative or surgical treatment is recommended; 27 children had an SLIC score ≥ 5, indicating a recommendation for surgical treatment; and 200 children had an SLIC score ≤ 3, indicating a recommendation for conservative treatment. Of the 243 patients, 227 received treatment consistent with SLIC score recommendations (p < 0.001). SLIC sensitivity in determining surgically treated patients was 79.2% and the specificity for accurately determining who underwent conservative treatment was 96.1%. The PPV was 70.3% and the NPV was 97.5%. There was a 5.7% misclassification rate (n = 13) using SLIC. Among patients for whom surgical treatment would be recommended by the SLIC, 29.6% (n = 8) did not undergo surgery; similarly, 2.5% (n = 5) of patients for whom conservative management would be recommended by the SLIC had surgery. The ROC curve for determining treatment received demonstrated excellent discriminative ability, with an AUC of 0.96 (OR 3.12, p < 0.001). Sensitivity decreased when the cohort was split by age (< 10 and ≥ 10 years old) to 0.5 and 0.82, respectively; specificity remained high at 0.98 and 0.94. CONCLUSIONS: The SLIC scoring system recommended similar treatment when compared with the actual treatment delivered for traumatic subaxial cervical spine injuries in children, with a low misclassification rate and a specificity of 96%. These findings demonstrate that the SLIC can be useful in guiding treatment for pediatric patients with subaxial cervical spine injuries. Further investigation into the score in young children (< 10 years) using a multicenter cohort is warranted.

Management Patterns and Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury With Associated Blunt Cerebrovascular Injury.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVIs) are relatively common in patients with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), uncertainty remains regarding optimal management strategies to prevent neurological complications, morbidity, and mortality. Our objectives were to characterize common care patterns; assess the prevalence of adverse outcomes, including stroke, functional deficits, and death, by BCVI grade; and evaluate therapeutic approaches to treatment in patients with BCVI and TBI. METHODS: Patients with TBI and BCVI treated at our Level I trauma center from January 2016 to December 2020 were identified. Presenting characteristics, treatment, and outcomes were captured for univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of 323 patients with BCVI, 145 had Biffl grade I, 91 had grade II, 49 had grade III, and 38 had grade IV injuries. Lower-grade BCVIs were more frequently managed with low-dose (81 mg) aspirin ( P < .01), although all grades were predominantly treated with high-dose (150-600 mg) aspirin ( P = .10). Patients with low-grade BCVIs had significantly fewer complications ( P < .01) and strokes ( P < .01). Most strokes occurred in the acute time frame (<24 hours), including 10/11 (90.9%) grade IV-related strokes. Higher BCVI grade portended elevated risk of stroke (grade II odds ratio [OR] 5.3, grade III OR 12.2, and grade IV OR 19.6 compared with grade I; all P < .05). The use of low- or high-dose aspirin was protective against mortality (both OR 0.1, P < .05). CONCLUSION: In patients with TBI, BCVIs impart greater risk for stroke and other associated morbidities as their severity increases. It may prove difficult to mitigate high-grade BCVI-related stroke, considering most events occur in the acute window. The paucity of late time frame strokes suggest that current management strategies do help mitigate risks.