{"id":{"repo_id":"utswmed","oai_identifier":"oai:utswmed-ir.tdl.org:2152.5/9875"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/utswmed/oai:utswmed-ir.tdl.org:2152.5/9875","repository":{"repo_id":"utswmed","name":"University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center","base_url":"https://utswmed-ir.tdl.org/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Efficacy and Safety Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy Using Light-Weight and Heavy-Weight Polypropylene Mesh","abstract":"AIMS: This study compares long-term surgical outcomes of light-weight polypropylene mesh (LWPPM) and heavy-weight polypropylene mesh (PPM) for robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC). METHODS: Following IRB approval, a 2-surgeon POP database of women who underwent RSC at a single institution was reviewed. Minimum follow-up time was 6 months. Patients were stratified by mesh weight: Boston Scientific MarlexTM natural Trelex mesh or AtriumTM ProLite mesh (PPM) versus Caldera Medical Vertessa(r) Lite Y Polypropylene Mesh (LWPPM). Success was defined using a composite of absence of prolapse symptoms at the patient's most recent visit, no POP-Q point beyond the hymen, and no reoperation for POP. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, 110 patients met study criteria: 67 with LWPPM and 43 with PPM. The success rate of RSC using LWPPM at 12 months was 91.0% versus 90.7% for RSC with PPM (p =1). Over time, the mean follow-up length was 23.3 months in the LWPPM groups compared to 44.7 months in the PPM group (p <0.0002). The success rate at the last follow-up of RSC using LWPPM was significantly higher than that of RSC with PPM - 89.6% versus 72.1% (p =0.0221). Regarding complications, mesh extrusion rates varied (3.0% for LWPPM versus 11.6% for PPM at the last follow-up); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.11) nor was the difference in management (p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: RSC using LWPPM is a safe and effective procedure. Success rates using LWPPM are not inferior to those using PPM. Complication rates were low with either mesh.","abstract_html":"AIMS: This study compares long-term surgical outcomes of light-weight polypropylene mesh (LWPPM) and heavy-weight polypropylene mesh (PPM) for robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC). METHODS: Following IRB approval, a 2-surgeon POP database of women who underwent RSC at a single institution was reviewed. Minimum follow-up time was 6 months. Patients were stratified by mesh weight: Boston Scientific MarlexTM natural Trelex mesh or AtriumTM ProLite mesh (PPM) versus Caldera Medical Vertessa(r) Lite Y Polypropylene Mesh (LWPPM). Success was defined using a composite of absence of prolapse symptoms at the patient's most recent visit, no POP-Q point beyond the hymen, and no reoperation for POP. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, 110 patients met study criteria: 67 with LWPPM and 43 with PPM. The success rate of RSC using LWPPM at 12 months was 91.0% versus 90.7% for RSC with PPM (p =1). Over time, the mean follow-up length was 23.3 months in the LWPPM groups compared to 44.7 months in the PPM group (p <0.0002). The success rate at the last follow-up of RSC using LWPPM was significantly higher than that of RSC with PPM - 89.6% versus 72.1% (p =0.0221). Regarding complications, mesh extrusion rates varied (3.0% for LWPPM versus 11.6% for PPM at the last follow-up); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.11) nor was the difference in management (p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: RSC using LWPPM is a safe and effective procedure. Success rates using LWPPM are not inferior to those using PPM. Complication rates were low with either mesh.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Huang, Emily You"],"institution":null,"degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Carmel, Maude","Lemack, Gary","Zimmern, Philippe E."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2022,"date_issued":"2022-06-24T20:21:03Z","date_published":"2022-06-24T20:21:03Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:52:08Z","subjects":["Pelvic Organ Prolapse","Polypropylenes","Robotic Surgical Procedures","Surgical Mesh"],"languages":["en"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["1333220388"],"render_values":[{"text":"1333220388","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/2152.5/9875","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Carmel, Maude","Lemack, Gary","Zimmern, Philippe E."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Huang, Emily You"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2022-06-24T20:21:03Z","2020-05","2020-05-01T05:00:00.000Z","May 2020","2022-06-24T20:21:04Z"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis","text"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Pelvic Organ Prolapse","Polypropylenes","Robotic Surgical Procedures","Surgical Mesh"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/2152.5/9875","1333220388"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["AIMS: This study compares long-term surgical outcomes of light-weight polypropylene mesh (LWPPM) and heavy-weight polypropylene mesh (PPM) for robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC). METHODS: Following IRB approval, a 2-surgeon POP database of women who underwent RSC at a single institution was reviewed. Minimum follow-up time was 6 months. Patients were stratified by mesh weight: Boston Scientific MarlexTM natural Trelex mesh or AtriumTM ProLite mesh (PPM) versus Caldera Medical Vertessa(r) Lite Y Polypropylene Mesh (LWPPM). Success was defined using a composite of absence of prolapse symptoms at the patient's most recent visit, no POP-Q point beyond the hymen, and no reoperation for POP. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, 110 patients met study criteria: 67 with LWPPM and 43 with PPM. The success rate of RSC using LWPPM at 12 months was 91.0% versus 90.7% for RSC with PPM (p =1). Over time, the mean follow-up length was 23.3 months in the LWPPM groups compared to 44.7 months in the PPM group (p <0.0002). The success rate at the last follow-up of RSC using LWPPM was significantly higher than that of RSC with PPM - 89.6% versus 72.1% (p =0.0221). Regarding complications, mesh extrusion rates varied (3.0% for LWPPM versus 11.6% for PPM at the last follow-up); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.11) nor was the difference in management (p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: RSC using LWPPM is a safe and effective procedure. Success rates using LWPPM are not inferior to those using PPM. Complication rates were low with either mesh."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Efficacy and Safety Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy Using Light-Weight and Heavy-Weight Polypropylene Mesh"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Carmel, Maude","Lemack, Gary","Zimmern, Philippe E."],"dc:creator":["Huang, Emily You"],"dc:date":["2022-06-24T20:21:03Z","2020-05","2020-05-01T05:00:00.000Z","May 2020","2022-06-24T20:21:04Z"],"dc:description":["AIMS: This study compares long-term surgical outcomes of light-weight polypropylene mesh (LWPPM) and heavy-weight polypropylene mesh (PPM) for robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC). METHODS: Following IRB approval, a 2-surgeon POP database of women who underwent RSC at a single institution was reviewed. Minimum follow-up time was 6 months. Patients were stratified by mesh weight: Boston Scientific MarlexTM natural Trelex mesh or AtriumTM ProLite mesh (PPM) versus Caldera Medical Vertessa(r) Lite Y Polypropylene Mesh (LWPPM). Success was defined using a composite of absence of prolapse symptoms at the patient's most recent visit, no POP-Q point beyond the hymen, and no reoperation for POP. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, 110 patients met study criteria: 67 with LWPPM and 43 with PPM. The success rate of RSC using LWPPM at 12 months was 91.0% versus 90.7% for RSC with PPM (p =1). Over time, the mean follow-up length was 23.3 months in the LWPPM groups compared to 44.7 months in the PPM group (p <0.0002). The success rate at the last follow-up of RSC using LWPPM was significantly higher than that of RSC with PPM - 89.6% versus 72.1% (p =0.0221). Regarding complications, mesh extrusion rates varied (3.0% for LWPPM versus 11.6% for PPM at the last follow-up); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.11) nor was the difference in management (p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: RSC using LWPPM is a safe and effective procedure. Success rates using LWPPM are not inferior to those using PPM. Complication rates were low with either mesh."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["https://hdl.handle.net/2152.5/9875","1333220388"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:subject":["Pelvic Organ Prolapse","Polypropylenes","Robotic Surgical Procedures","Surgical Mesh"],"dc:title":["Efficacy and Safety Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy Using Light-Weight and Heavy-Weight Polypropylene Mesh"],"dc:type":["Thesis","text"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:52:08Z"}