Academic
Publications
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

Comparison of clinical outcome and urodynamic findings using “Perigee and/or Apogee” versus “Prolift anterior and/or posterior” system devices for the

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   (Citations: 4)
BibTex | RIS | RefWorks Download
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 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 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.
Journal: International Urogynecology Journal - INT UROGYNECOL J , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 233-239, 2011
Cumulative Annual
View Publication
The following links allow you to view full publications. These links are maintained by other sources not affiliated with Microsoft Academic Search.
Sort by: