Gaetano De Rienzo

PD17-05 LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS ROBOTIC ASSISTED SACROCOLPOPEXY: A RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED TRIAL

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 followup, 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.