Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Using “Elevate Anterior” versus “Perigee” System Devices for the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

OBJECTIVE This study aims to compare clinical outcomes using the Perigee versus Elevate anterior devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). STUDY DESIGN One hundred and forty-one women with POP stages II to IV were scheduled for either Perigee (n = 91) or Elevate anterior device (n = 50). Preoperative and postoperative assessments included pelvic examination, urodynamic study, and a personal interview about quality of life and urinary symptoms. RESULTS Despite postoperative point C of Elevate group being significantly deeper than the Perigee group (median: -7.5 versus -6; P < 0.01), the 1-year success rates for two groups were comparable (P > 0.05). Apart from urgency incontinence, women with advanced POP experienced significant resolution of irritating and obstructive symptoms after both procedures (P < 0.05), generating the improvement in postoperative scores of Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) (P < 0.01). On urodynamics, only the residual urine decreased significantly following these two procedures (P < 0.05). Women undergoing Perigee mesh experienced significantly higher visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and vaginal extrusion rates compared with the Elevate anterior procedure (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS With comparable success rates, the Elevate procedure has advantages over the Perigee surgery with lower extrusion rate and postoperative day 1 VAS scores.