It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Introduction
An increasing number of women are presenting with symptoms after the placement of mesh implants for prolapse which may be attributable to a mesh implant complication. MRI imaging can be used to evaluate abdominally placed mesh but there is no published research evaluating the use of MRI in this group of women. The objective of our study was to report our experience as a tertiary centre in evaluating abdominal mesh with MR imaging and the agreement of MR reports with surgical findings.
Study design
A retrospective observational cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2) of all women referred to our tertiary unit who underwent an MR scan for investigation of symptoms of mesh complication following an abdominally placed mesh implant between June 2006 and September 2018 was performed. The reports of MR images were compared with the findings at surgery.
Results
MR scan was performed in 87 with suspected mesh complications. MR scan detected mesh failure in 42.1% of women (37/87), infection in 12.6% (11/87), compression in 2.3% (2/87), exposure in 12.6% (11/88), bowel extrusion in 2.3% (2/87) and inflammation in 11.5% (10/87). Agreement between MR scan report and surgical diagnosis was almost perfect for mesh failure, infection and compression, whilst agreement was only moderate for mesh erosion and signs of inflammation (failure κ = 0.97, infection κ = 0.94, compression κ = 1.0, exposure κ = 0.58 and inflammation κ = 0.24).
Conclusion
These data provide information on the role of MR imaging in the investigation of women presenting with suspected intra-abdominal POP mesh complications including recurrence.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Warrell Unit, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester, UK (GRID:grid.462482.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0417 0074)
2 Pennine Acute NHS Trust, Fairfield General Hospital, Bury, UK (GRID:grid.414732.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 0400 8034)
3 Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Department of Radiology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK (GRID:grid.462482.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0417 0074)
4 Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Warrell Unit, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester, UK (GRID:grid.462482.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0417 0074); University of Manchester, Institute of Human Development, Faculty of Medical & Human Sciences, Manchester, UK (GRID:grid.5379.8) (ISNI:0000000121662407)