Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Using “Elevate Anterior” versus “Perigee” System Devices for the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

• Main Authors: Cheng-Yu Long, Chiu-Lin Wang, Ming-Ping Wu, Chin-Hu Wu, Kun-Ling Lin, Cheng-Min Liu, Eing-Mei Tsai, Ching-Ju Shen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hindawi Limited 2015-01-01
• Series: BioMed Research International
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/479610
• ISSN: 2314-6133; 2314-6141

Objective. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes using the Perigee versus Elevate anterior devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Study Design. One hundred and forty-one women with POP stages II to IV were scheduled for either Perigee (n=91) or Elevate anterior device (n=50). Preoperative and postoperative assessments included pelvic examination, urodynamic study, and a personal interview about quality of life and urinary symptoms. Results. Despite postoperative point C of Elevate group being significantly deeper than the Perigee group (median: −7.5 versus −6; P<0.01), the 1-year success rates for two groups were comparable (P>0.05). Apart from urgency incontinence, women with advanced POP experienced significant resolution of irritating and obstructive symptoms after both procedures (P<0.05), generating the improvement in postoperative scores of Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) (P<0.01). On urodynamics, only the residual urine decreased significantly following these two procedures (P<0.05). Women undergoing Perigee mesh experienced significantly higher visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and vaginal extrusion rates compared with the Elevate anterior procedure (P<0.05). Conclusions. With comparable success rates, the Elevate procedure has advantages over the Perigee surgery with lower extrusion rate and postoperative day 1 VAS scores.