INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal mesh kits are increasingly used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to determine similarity of outcomes of the Anterior Prolift with Perigee systems for anterior compartment prolapse. METHODS: Consecutive women undergoing Perigee or Anterior Prolift for symptomatic stage 2 or greater anterior vaginal prolapse were prospectively evaluated. Main outcome measures included objective and subjective success rates, perioperative outcomes, patient satisfaction, and complications. RESULTS: One hundred and six women (Prolift, 52; Perigee, 54) completed questionnaires, and 91 (Prolift, 46; Perigee, 45) were examined postoperatively. At follow-up (Prolift: median, 11.0; range, 5-23 months; Perigee: median, 11.5; range, 6 - 23 months), objective success rates (Prolift, 89%; Perigee, 80%; p = 0.23), subjective success rates (Prolift, 94%; Perigee, 96%; p=0.62), mean ± SD patient satisfaction (Prolift, 8.2 ± 2.0; Perigee, 8.2 ± 1.8; p = 0.91), and complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Anterior Prolift was found to not differ significantly from Perigee at 11 months.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal mesh kits are increasingly used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to determine similarity of outcomes of the Anterior Prolift with Perigee systems for anterior compartment prolapse. METHODS: Consecutive women undergoing Perigee or Anterior Prolift for symptomatic stage 2 or greater anterior vaginal prolapse were prospectively evaluated. Main outcome measures included objective and subjective success rates, perioperative outcomes, patient satisfaction, and complications. RESULTS: One hundred and six women (Prolift, 52; Perigee, 54) completed questionnaires, and 91 (Prolift, 46; Perigee, 45) were examined postoperatively. At follow-up (Prolift: median, 11.0; range, 5-23 months; Perigee: median, 11.5; range, 6 - 23 months), objective success rates (Prolift, 89%; Perigee, 80%; p = 0.23), subjective success rates (Prolift, 94%; Perigee, 96%; p=0.62), mean ± SD patient satisfaction (Prolift, 8.2 ± 2.0; Perigee, 8.2 ± 1.8; p = 0.91), and complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Anterior Prolift was found to not differ significantly from Perigee at 11 months.
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: Matthew J Aungst; Evan B Friedman; Walter S von Pechmann; Nicolette S Horbach; Jeffrey A Welgoss Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Cheryl B Iglesia; Andrew I Sokol; Eric R Sokol; Bela I Kudish; Robert E Gutman; Joanna L Peterson; Susan Shott Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Christopher F Maher; Aymen M Qatawneh; Peter L Dwyer; Marcus P Carey; Ann Cornish; Philip J Schluter Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Shimon Ginath; Alan D Garely; Jonathan S Luchs; Azin Shahryarinejad; Cedric K Olivera; Sue Zhou; Charles J Ascher-Walsh; Alexander Condrea; Michael L Brodman; Michael D Vardy Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-04-28 Impact factor: 2.894