1398 Patient demographics and characteristics before mesh excision are summarized in Table 1. A variety of mesh materials were excised in our population: Gynemesh™, Mersilene™, Prolift™, Ultrapro™, TVT™, TVT-O™ (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA), IVS™ (Tyco Healthcare LP, Norwalk, CT, USA), Avaulta™ (CR Bard, Covington, GA, USA), Apogee™ (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA), EndoFast Reliant™ (Endogun Medical Systems, Kibbutz Haogen, Israel), Gore-Tex™, Mycromesh™ (WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ, USA), Teflon™ (Davol/Bard, Cranston, RI, USA). Prolift™ was the most removed mesh material in our patients (40%). The mesh insertion surgery was performed at our center in 41% of patients; in 59%, mesh was inserted at other hospitals. Frequency of signs and symptoms and the distribution between different types of mesh insertion procedure are presented in Table 2. Fifty-seven (76%) patients had mesh exposure, of which most were localized in the vaginal wall (90%). Furthermore, four patients had an exposure in the bladder (three after TVT™, one after Prolift™), two patients had a vesicovaginal fistula (after Prolift™), and Table 1 Patient demographics and preoperative characteristics Int Urogynecol J (2011) 22:1395–1404 one patient had a rectovaginal fistula (after sacrocolpo- pexy). Most women reported more than one mesh-related symptom. Only one patient did not report any symptoms, although she had a persistent, large exposure of the mesh. The primary complaint was pain in the majority of cases (77%), which consisted of dyspareunia, vaginal pain, chronic pain of the abdomen, back, buttock, or leg, or a combination of these. A distinct difference in frequency of mesh-related symptoms existed between the different types of mesh insertion procedure, especially in sacrocolpopexy compared to the other procedures (Table 2). Pain and dyspareunia are mainly seen after vaginal mesh insertion and vaginal bleeding and discharge after sacrocolpopexy. Patients with mesh exposure also presented differently than patients without exposure. They reported less pain symp- toms (54% vs 94%, P= 0.002) and more often vaginal bleeding and discharge (32% vs 6%, P= 0.031 and 47% vs 6%, P= 0.002). Patients with severe mesh complications, patients with exposure in the bladder or fistula, and patients that have had a previous mesh excision underwent more often All, N=75 (100%) Partial excision, n=48 (64%) Complete excision, n=27 (36%) P value 0.034 0.822 0.046 0.407 0.642 0.835 0.223 0.226 0.041 0.309 0.104 0.661 1.000 0.371 0.048 0.989 0.344 <0.001 <0.001 Age (years) 56±11 BMIa 26±4 Smokingb 12 (16) Comorbidity 49 (65) History of POP/SUI surgery prior to mesh insertion 56 (75) No. of previous POP/SUI surgeries 2 (0–7) Previous hysterectomy 58 (77) Procedure mesh insertion Anterior repair 14 (19) Posterior repair 15 (20) Total mesh/anterior–posterior repair 19 (25) Sacrocolpopexy 12 (16) Retro pubic incontinence sling 6 (8) Transobturator incontinence sling 9 (12) POP-Q stage before mesh excisionc POP-Q stage 0 31 (43) POP-Q stage I 11 (15) POP-Q stage II 25 (35) POP-Q stage III 5 (7) Former mesh excision 22 (29) No. of former mesh excisions 0 (0–4) 54±10 26±4 11 (23) 33 (69) 35 (73) 2 (0–7) 35 (73) 7 (15) 13 (27) 14 (29) 5 (10) 3 (6) 6 (13) 18 (39) 10 (22) 16 (35) 2 (4) 6 (13) 0 (0–1) 59±10 26±3 1 (4) 16 (59) 21 (78) 2 (0–4) 23 (85) 7 (26) 2 (7) 5 (19) 7 (26) 3 (11) 3 (11) 13 (50) 1 (4) 9 (35) 3 (12) 16 (59) 1 (0–4) Values are presented as mean±SD, median (range), or number (%). P value represents a comparison between the groups “partial excision” and “complete excision” a Missing, n=4; partial excision, n=1; complete excision, n=3 b Missing, n=1; partial excision, n=1 c Missing, n=3; partial excision, n=2; complete excision, n=1