Comparison of clinical outcome and urodynamic findings using "Perigee and/or Apogee" versus "Prolift anterior and/or posterior" system devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
OBJECTIVE
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.
Long
Cheng-Yu
CY
Graduate Institute of Medicine, Center of Excellence for Environmental Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Hsu
Chun-Shuo
CS
Jang
Mei-Yu
MY
Liu
Cheng-Min
CM
Chiang
Po-Hui
PH
Tsai
Eing-Mei
EM
D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D056887:Pelvic Organ Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*; D053825:Suburethral Slings; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014563:Urodynamics