PD17-03 MATCHED PAIR ANALYSIS COMPARING HEAVY WEIGHT VERSUS LIGHTER WEIGHT WIDE PORE POLYPROPYLENE MESH FOR ROBOTIC SACROCOLPOPEXY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Female Pelvic Medicine: Pelvic Prolapse II1 Apr 2017PD17-03 MATCHED PAIR ANALYSIS COMPARING HEAVY WEIGHT VERSUS LIGHTER WEIGHT WIDE PORE POLYPROPYLENE MESH FOR ROBOTIC SACROCOLPOPEXY Robert Carey, Ali Harris, Maximilian Carey, and Karim Ghazli Robert CareyRobert Carey More articles by this author , Ali HarrisAli Harris More articles by this author , Maximilian CareyMaximilian Carey More articles by this author , and Karim GhazliKarim Ghazli More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.850AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES All FDA approved wide pore polypropylene Y-mesh grafts available for robotic sacrocolpopexy have variance in the mesh weight, pore size, thickness, surface area ratio and suture pull out strengths. In this study we evaluated results observed for robotic sacrocolpopexy performed with two separate wide pore polypropylene Y meshes that differ markedly in their physical properties. METHODS Data is collected from an IRB approved prospectively maintained retrospective database of robotic sacrocolpopexy cases performed at an 836 bed tertiary care hospital by a single surgeon. Using analysis matched for covariates of BMI, POP-Q stage, surgeon, and previous attempts at repair, we evaluated whether the weight of the Y-mesh influenced the anatomic outcome and rate of de novo SUI at two year follow-up. RESULTS Between 2011 and 2016, a total of 175 patients underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy for POP-Q Stage IV VVP. 50 patients undergoing repair with a heavy mesh weight (52 g/m2, 527 microns thick, and a suture pull out strength of 18.3 N) were matched to 50 patients undergoing repair with a lighter weight mesh ( 25 g/m2, 200 microns thick, and suture pull out strength of 23.3 N). At two year follow-up, anatomic success for apical prolapse was 100% and 2 patients (4%) in each group were found to have residual Grade 2 anterior prolapse and 2 patients (4%) in each group found to have Grade 2 posterior prolapse. De novo SUI was found in 5 patients (10%) in the heavy mesh group and 4 patients (8%) in the lighter mesh group. All de novo SUI patients did not have a mid urethral sling, MUS, placed at the time of the procedure. There was one mesh erosion in the light weight mesh group in a salvage patient that underwent concomitant pre-existing mesh removal at the time of surgery. CONCLUSIONS Although the two Y-meshes are markedly different in their weight, surface area, thickness and suture pullout strength, there was no observed significant difference in the anatomic success of repair, the rate of de novo stress urinary incontinence or mesh erosion. The rates of de novo SUI seen in this study, have led us to perform a MUS procedure at the time of sacrocolpopexy for all Grade IV prolapse patients. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e353-e354 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Robert Carey More articles by this author Ali Harris More articles by this author Maximilian Carey More articles by this author Karim Ghazli More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...