A prospective comparison of two commercial mesh kits in the management of anterior vaginal prolapse
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Feiner, B., O’Rourke, P. & Maher, C. Int Urogynecol J (2012) 23: 279. doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1578-x
- 206 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
The Anterior Prolift® was found to not differ significantly from Perigee® at 11 months.
KeywordsPerigee Prolapse Prolift Vaginal mesh
Pelvic organ prolapse quantification
Randomized controlled trial
Pelvic organ prolapse
Tension-free vaginal tape–obturator
Australian pelvic floor questionnaire
Stress urinary incontinence
Urinary tract infection
Clean intermittent self-catheterizations
Activities of daily living