Premium
A retrospective analysis of the effectiveness of anterior pelvic organ prolapse repair with Prolift versus Elevate vaginal mesh
Author(s) -
BarrosPereira Isabel,
ValentimLourenço Alexandre,
Fonseca Andreia,
Melo Bruna,
Henriques Alexandra,
Ribeirinho Ana
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
international journal of gynecology and obstetrics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.895
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1879-3479
pISSN - 0020-7292
DOI - 10.1002/ijgo.12267
Subject(s) - medicine , urogynecology , surgery , retrospective cohort study , pelvic floor , urinary incontinence
Objective To compare the effectiveness of anterior pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair using Prolift (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) or Elevate (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA) vaginal mesh at 12 months of follow‐up. Methods A retrospective study was undertaken using the records for the first 50 Prolift procedures in 2007–2009 and the first 50 Elevate procedures in 2013–2015 performed at a tertiary urogynecology unit in Lisbon, Portugal. Postoperative follow‐up occurred at 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome was surgical efficacy using subjective and objective measures (vaginal bulge symptoms and POP quantification system according to the Weber criteria, respectively) at 12 months. Results Improvement according to the Weber criteria was noted for 10 (25%) of 40 women in the Prolift group and 21 (48%) of 44 in the Elevate group at 12 months ( P= 0.032). Additionally, the Ba point was higher with Elevate than with Prolift (−2.2 ± 1.1 vs −1.5 ± 1.5; P= 0.031). Vaginal bulge symptoms were reported at 12 months by 7 (18%) women in the Prolift group and 3 (7%) in the Elevate group ( P= 0.021). Conclusion Differences in anatomic results were apparent between the two vaginal mesh groups 12 months after surgery.