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.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

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.