INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To prospectively evaluate the use of a particular polypropylene Y mesh for robotic sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 120 patients who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy. We compared preoperative and 12-month postoperative objective and subjective assessments via the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q), the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, Short Form 20 (PFDI-20); the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, Short Form 7 (PFIQ-7); and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire 12 (PISQ-12). Objective "anatomical success" was defined as POP-Q stage 0 or 1 at all postoperative intervals. We further defined "clinical cure" by simultaneously considering POP-Q points and subjective measures. To be considered a "clinical cure," a given patient had to have all POP-Q points ≤0, apical POP-Q point C ≤5, no reported pelvic organ prolapse symptoms on the PFDI-20, and no reoperation for prolapse at all postoperative intervals. RESULTS: Of the 120 patients, 118 patients completed the 1-year follow-up. The objective "anatomical success" rate was 89 % and the "clinical cure" rate was 94 %. The PFDI-20 mean score improved from 100.4 at baseline to 21.0 at 12 months (p < 0.0001); PFIQ-7 scores improved from 61.6 to 8.0 (p < 0.0001); and PISQ-12 scores improved from 35.7 to 38.6 (p < 0.0009). No mesh erosions or mesh-related complications occurred. CONCLUSION: The use of this ultra-lightweight Y mesh for sacrocolpopexy, eliminated the mesh-related complications in the first postoperative year, and provided significant improvement in subjective and objective outcomes.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To prospectively evaluate the use of a particular polypropylene Y mesh for robotic sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 120 patients who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy. We compared preoperative and 12-month postoperative objective and subjective assessments via the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q), the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, Short Form 20 (PFDI-20); the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, Short Form 7 (PFIQ-7); and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire 12 (PISQ-12). Objective "anatomical success" was defined as POP-Q stage 0 or 1 at all postoperative intervals. We further defined "clinical cure" by simultaneously considering POP-Q points and subjective measures. To be considered a "clinical cure," a given patient had to have all POP-Q points ≤0, apical POP-Q point C ≤5, no reported pelvic organ prolapse symptoms on the PFDI-20, and no reoperation for prolapse at all postoperative intervals. RESULTS: Of the 120 patients, 118 patients completed the 1-year follow-up. The objective "anatomical success" rate was 89 % and the "clinical cure" rate was 94 %. The PFDI-20 mean score improved from 100.4 at baseline to 21.0 at 12 months (p < 0.0001); PFIQ-7 scores improved from 61.6 to 8.0 (p < 0.0001); and PISQ-12 scores improved from 35.7 to 38.6 (p < 0.0009). No mesh erosions or mesh-related complications occurred. CONCLUSION: The use of this ultra-lightweight Y mesh for sacrocolpopexy, eliminated the mesh-related complications in the first postoperative year, and provided significant improvement in subjective and objective outcomes.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Marie Fidela R Paraiso; J Eric Jelovsek; Anna Frick; Chi Chung Grace Chen; Matthew D Barber Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: A M Weber; P Abrams; L Brubaker; G Cundiff; G Davis; R R Dmochowski; J Fischer; T Hull; I Nygaard; A C Weidner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2001
Authors: Ingrid E Nygaard; Rebecca McCreery; Linda Brubaker; AnnaMarie Connolly; Geoff Cundiff; Anne M Weber; Halina Zyczynski Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly E Richter; Anthony Visco; Anne M Weber; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Paul Fine; Chiara Ghetti; Morton B Brown Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; Emily S Lukacz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Sunil Balgobin; Joseph L Fitzwater; Donald D McIntire; Imelda J Delgado; Clifford Y Wai Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Kimberly Kenton; Elizabeth R Mueller; Christopher Tarney; Catherine Bresee; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Femke van Zanten; Jan J van Iersel; Tim J C Paulides; Paul M Verheijen; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten; Egbert Lenters; Steven E Schraffordt Koops Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Patrick J Culligan; Emil Gurshumov; Christa Lewis; Jennifer L Priestley; Jodie Komar; Nihar Shah; Charbel G Salamon Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 2.894