Original Article

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 279-283

First online:

A prospective comparison of two commercial mesh kits in the management of anterior vaginal prolapse

  • Benjamin FeinerAffiliated withRoyal Women’s, Wesley and Mater UrogynaecologyDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Hillel Yaffe Medical CenterTechnion University, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine Email author 
  • , Peter O’RourkeAffiliated withQueensland Institute of Medical Research (QIMR)
  • , Christopher MaherAffiliated withRoyal Women’s, Wesley and Mater Urogynaecology

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access


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.


Perigee Prolapse Prolift Vaginal mesh