Document Type

Article

Publication Date

6-1-2014

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: The objective of this study was to assess outcomes following robotic sacrocolpopexy using a lightweight polypropylene Y-mesh. Methods: During our study period, all patients who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy were enrolled in this single-arm prospective trial. Endpoints included Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) values; Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, short form 20 (PFDI-20); Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, short form 7 (PFIQ-7); Surgical Satisfaction scores; and the Sandvik Incontinence Severity Index. All surgeries were performed with a pre-configured monofilament type 1 polypropylene Y-mesh (Alyte©, C.R. Bard, Covington, GA, USA). Cure rates at 12 months were calculated using two separate definitions: (1) 'clinical cure': no POP-Q points > 0, point C ≤ −5, no prolapse symptoms on the PFDI-20, and no reoperations for prolapse and (2) 'objective anatomic cure': POP-Q stage 0 or 1, point C of ≤ −5, and no reoperations for prolapse. Results: A total of 150 patients underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy and 143 (95 %) were available for 12-month follow-up. Mean age was 58.6 ± 9.8 and mean body mass index was 26.3 ± 4.5. Mean operative time and blood loss were 148 ± 27.6 min (range 75-250 min) and 51.2 ± 32, respectively. There were no mesh erosions or exposures, and mesh edges were not palpable in any patient. At 12 months the clinical cure rate was 95 %, and the objective anatomic cure rate was 84 %. The PFDI-20 mean score improved from 98 at baseline to 17 at 12 months ( p < 0.0001); PFIQ-7 scores improved from 59 to 6.5 ( p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Robotic sacrocolpopexy using this lightweight polypropylene Y-mesh offers excellent subjective and objective results at 1 year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Share

COinS