Literature DB >> 30681427

Does Mesh Weight Affect Time to Failure After Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy?

Amy L Askew1, Anthony G Visco2, Alison C Weidner2, Tracy Truong3, Nazema Y Siddiqui2, Megan S Bradley4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare time to anatomic failure after robotic sacrocolpopexy with use of ultralightweight versus heavier weight mesh types.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy, from January 2012 to September 2016. We compared (1) sacrocolpopexy with ultralightweight mesh (≤20 g/m) versus (2) sacrocolpopexy with heavier weight mesh (≤35 g/m). Our primary outcome was time to anatomic failure, defined as recurrent prolapse beyond the hymen, or retreatment for prolapse with surgery or pessary. Secondary outcomes were compartment of failure and mesh exposure. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the hazard of failure based on mesh type.
RESULTS: Of 461 patients, 248 (53.8%) underwent sacrocolpopexy with ultralightweight mesh and 213 (46.2%) with heavier weight mesh. Failures occurred in 37 women, with 21 in the ultralightweight mesh group and 16 in the heavier weight mesh group. Time to failure was statistically significant between groups (P = 0.03). Ultralightweight mesh had twice the hazard of failure within 3 years compared with heavier weight mesh (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-4.21; P = 0.03). Among failures, use of ultralightweight mesh was associated with almost 5 times the hazard of anterior compartment failure (hazard ratio, 4.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-14.27; P = 0.01). There was no difference in time to posterior failure. Of 17 mesh exposures, there were fewer in the ultralightweight mesh group, although this group was followed for less time (1.6% ultralightweight vs 6.0% heavier weight, P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Women receiving ultralightweight mesh are more likely to experience earlier anatomic failure in the anterior compartment.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 30681427     DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000632

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 2151-8378            Impact factor:   2.091


  6 in total

1.  A prospective randomized trial comparing Restorelle® Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: 24-month outcomes.

Authors:  Cecile A Ferrando; Marie Fidela R Paraiso
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Mesh complications after total vs supracervical laparoscopic hysterectomy at time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Deepanjana Das; Allison Carroll; Margaret Mueller; Kimberly Kenton; Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Sarah Collins; Julia Geynisman-Tan; C Emi Bretschneider
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 1.932

Review 3.  Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review.

Authors:  Stephanie Deblaere; Jan Hauspy; Karen Hansen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 1.932

Review 4.  Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Schachar; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-04

5.  Comparison of treatment outcomes for native tissue repair and sacrocolpopexy as apical suspension procedures at the time of hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.

Authors:  Sumin Oh; E Kyung Shin; Sowoon Hyun; Myung Jae Jeon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Risk factors for vaginal mesh erosion after sacrocolpopexy in Korean women.

Authors:  Tae Yeon Kim; Myung Jae Jeon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.