We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
A prospective comparison of two commercial mesh kits in the management of anterior vaginal prolapse.
International Urogynecology Journal 2012 March
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.
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.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app