INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study aims to compare clinical outcome using the Perigee/Apogee® vs. Prolift® devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: One hundred and eight women with POP stages II to IV were scheduled for either Perigee/Apogee® (Perigee group; n = 60) or Prolift® device (Prolift group; n = 48). Preoperative and postoperative assessments included pelvic examination, urodynamic study, and a personal interview about urinary and sexual symptoms. RESULTS: Despite different follow-up period (20 months for the Perigee group vs. 12 months for Prolift group; P < 0.01), the success rates for two groups were comparable (P > 0.05). Postoperative points Aa and Ba of Prolift group were significantly higher than the other group (P < 0.01). The prevalences of detrusor overactivity and urinary symptoms decreased significantly postoperatively in both groups (P < 0.05). Comparisons of all operative complications revealed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Perigee/Apogee® and Prolift® devices for POP repair have comparable success rates, mesh-related morbidities, and similar impacts on functional outcome.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study aims to compare clinical outcome using the Perigee/Apogee® vs. Prolift® devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: One hundred and eight women with POP stages II to IV were scheduled for either Perigee/Apogee® (Perigee group; n = 60) or Prolift® device (Prolift group; n = 48). Preoperative and postoperative assessments included pelvic examination, urodynamic study, and a personal interview about urinary and sexual symptoms. RESULTS: Despite different follow-up period (20 months for the Perigee group vs. 12 months for Prolift group; P < 0.01), the success rates for two groups were comparable (P > 0.05). Postoperative points Aa and Ba of Prolift group were significantly higher than the other group (P < 0.01). The prevalences of detrusor overactivity and urinary symptoms decreased significantly postoperatively in both groups (P < 0.05). Comparisons of all operative complications revealed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Perigee/Apogee® and Prolift® devices for POP repair have comparable success rates, mesh-related morbidities, and similar impacts on functional outcome.
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.696
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: P Debodinance; J Berrocal; H Clavé; M Cosson; O Garbin; B Jacquetin; C Rosenthal; D Salet-Lizée; R Villet Journal: J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) Date: 2004-11