Comparison of Prolift, Perigee‐Apogee, Prosima, and Elevate transvaginal mesh systems in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: Clinical outcomes of a long‐term observational study
Objectives To evaluate and compare the long‐term clinical outcomes of four different transvaginal mesh systems. Methods This retrospective study included 695 patients classified into four groups (Prolift, n = 132; Perigee‐Apogee, n = 186; Prosima, n = 60; Elevate; n = 317), with a median follow‐up t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Lower urinary tract symptoms 2022-01, Vol.14 (1), p.47-56 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 56 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 47 |
| container_title | Lower urinary tract symptoms |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Huang, Kuan‐Hui Chen, Wen‐Hsin Yang, Tsai‐Hwa Wu, Ling‐Ying Chang, Yu‐Wei Chuang, Fei‐Chi |
| description | Objectives
To evaluate and compare the long‐term clinical outcomes of four different transvaginal mesh systems.
Methods
This retrospective study included 695 patients classified into four groups (Prolift, n = 132; Perigee‐Apogee, n = 186; Prosima, n = 60; Elevate; n = 317), with a median follow‐up time of 5.8 years (range 0.5‐12.2 years). The outcomes were objective anatomic success (Pelvic Organ Prolapse [POP] Quantification system stage ≤1), mesh exposure, and urologic functional assessments.
Results
For anatomic outcomes, we stepwise analyzed the short‐term (within 3 years) and long‐term (after 3 years) results. Prolift had the highest long‐term success rate (9 years: 82.1%, P = .007). Elevate had a comparable short‐term success rate (3 years: 87.5%), but its long‐term success rate significantly decreased over time (5 years: 78.6%, 9 years: 66.8%, P = .007). Prosima had the lowest short‐term success rate (P = .027). For the long‐term mesh exposure rate (9‐year cumulative), Elevate had the lowest with 11.1%; next were Perigee‐Apogee (18.8%) and Prolift (24.6%); and Prosima had the highest with 39.4%, with a significant difference. In terms of urinary functional results, we observed no significant differences in voiding dysfunction, de novo stress urinary incontinence, or de novo overactive bladder symptoms among the four mesh groups, whether combined with midurethral sling surgery or not.
Conclusion
Different vaginal mesh designs have various advantages and features. Prolift provided the best long‐term anatomic success but had a high mesh exposure rate. Elevate gave comparable short‐term success but had a decreased long‐term success rate. However, Elevate is superior with the lowest long‐term mesh exposure rate. Prosima had the worst anatomic correction and highest mesh exposure rates. This study provides a comprehensive long‐term comparative result for POP patients and surgeons. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/luts.12408 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2562833392</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2615857295</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3578-4ba68901a82ddb189b8c4b70e072e0ecb62bd2fe8d8d7d01152b8ee07d0f16043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxiMEoqVw4QGQJS4I7RbbsWOHW7Uqf6SVqER7jpx4Elw5cfAki3LjEXgUnoknwWFLDxzwxTOa33wzmi_LnjN6ztJ74-cJzxkXVD_ITpmSaisLxR_ex4U4yZ4g3lJaKCbk4-wkF4KWSqjT7Ocu9KOJDsNAQkuuYvCunTbkCqLrAH59_3ExhhRs1hK63myIGSy59HAwE5ApmgEPpnOD8aQH_EJwwQl6JG4gI_iDa0iInUlJUjYjAsE5dhCXt2Tn3eCa1BfmqQmpeV3AEB-GLo2dIPYk1AgxDXJh1cdptsvT7FFrPMKzu_8su3l3eb37sN1_ev9xd7HfNrlUeitqU-iSMqO5tTXTZa0bUSsKVHGg0NQFry1vQVttlaWMSV5rSFVLW1ZQkZ9lr466afGvM-BU9Q4b8N4MEGasuCy4zvO85Al9-Q96G-aYNk5UwaSWipcyUa-PVJMOiRHaaozpnnGpGK1WH6vVx-qPjwl-cSc51z3Ye_SvcQlgR-Cb87D8R6ra31x_Por-BttNrfc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2615857295</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Prolift, Perigee‐Apogee, Prosima, and Elevate transvaginal mesh systems in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: Clinical outcomes of a long‐term observational study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals</source><creator>Huang, Kuan‐Hui ; Chen, Wen‐Hsin ; Yang, Tsai‐Hwa ; Wu, Ling‐Ying ; Chang, Yu‐Wei ; Chuang, Fei‐Chi</creator><creatorcontrib>Huang, Kuan‐Hui ; Chen, Wen‐Hsin ; Yang, Tsai‐Hwa ; Wu, Ling‐Ying ; Chang, Yu‐Wei ; Chuang, Fei‐Chi</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To evaluate and compare the long‐term clinical outcomes of four different transvaginal mesh systems.
Methods
This retrospective study included 695 patients classified into four groups (Prolift, n = 132; Perigee‐Apogee, n = 186; Prosima, n = 60; Elevate; n = 317), with a median follow‐up time of 5.8 years (range 0.5‐12.2 years). The outcomes were objective anatomic success (Pelvic Organ Prolapse [POP] Quantification system stage ≤1), mesh exposure, and urologic functional assessments.
Results
For anatomic outcomes, we stepwise analyzed the short‐term (within 3 years) and long‐term (after 3 years) results. Prolift had the highest long‐term success rate (9 years: 82.1%, P = .007). Elevate had a comparable short‐term success rate (3 years: 87.5%), but its long‐term success rate significantly decreased over time (5 years: 78.6%, 9 years: 66.8%, P = .007). Prosima had the lowest short‐term success rate (P = .027). For the long‐term mesh exposure rate (9‐year cumulative), Elevate had the lowest with 11.1%; next were Perigee‐Apogee (18.8%) and Prolift (24.6%); and Prosima had the highest with 39.4%, with a significant difference. In terms of urinary functional results, we observed no significant differences in voiding dysfunction, de novo stress urinary incontinence, or de novo overactive bladder symptoms among the four mesh groups, whether combined with midurethral sling surgery or not.
Conclusion
Different vaginal mesh designs have various advantages and features. Prolift provided the best long‐term anatomic success but had a high mesh exposure rate. Elevate gave comparable short‐term success but had a decreased long‐term success rate. However, Elevate is superior with the lowest long‐term mesh exposure rate. Prosima had the worst anatomic correction and highest mesh exposure rates. This study provides a comprehensive long‐term comparative result for POP patients and surgeons.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1757-5664</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1757-5672</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/luts.12408</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34409747</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia: Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</publisher><subject>anatomic success ; Clinical outcomes ; Female ; Humans ; long‐term outcome ; mesh exposure ; Observational studies ; Pelvic organ prolapse ; Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Suburethral Slings ; Success ; Surgical mesh ; Surgical Mesh - adverse effects ; transvaginal mesh ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Lower urinary tract symptoms, 2022-01, Vol.14 (1), p.47-56</ispartof><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd</rights><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.</rights><rights>2022 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3578-4ba68901a82ddb189b8c4b70e072e0ecb62bd2fe8d8d7d01152b8ee07d0f16043</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3578-4ba68901a82ddb189b8c4b70e072e0ecb62bd2fe8d8d7d01152b8ee07d0f16043</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fluts.12408$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fluts.12408$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34409747$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huang, Kuan‐Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Wen‐Hsin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Tsai‐Hwa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Ling‐Ying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chang, Yu‐Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chuang, Fei‐Chi</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Prolift, Perigee‐Apogee, Prosima, and Elevate transvaginal mesh systems in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: Clinical outcomes of a long‐term observational study</title><title>Lower urinary tract symptoms</title><addtitle>Low Urin Tract Symptoms</addtitle><description>Objectives
To evaluate and compare the long‐term clinical outcomes of four different transvaginal mesh systems.
Methods
This retrospective study included 695 patients classified into four groups (Prolift, n = 132; Perigee‐Apogee, n = 186; Prosima, n = 60; Elevate; n = 317), with a median follow‐up time of 5.8 years (range 0.5‐12.2 years). The outcomes were objective anatomic success (Pelvic Organ Prolapse [POP] Quantification system stage ≤1), mesh exposure, and urologic functional assessments.
Results
For anatomic outcomes, we stepwise analyzed the short‐term (within 3 years) and long‐term (after 3 years) results. Prolift had the highest long‐term success rate (9 years: 82.1%, P = .007). Elevate had a comparable short‐term success rate (3 years: 87.5%), but its long‐term success rate significantly decreased over time (5 years: 78.6%, 9 years: 66.8%, P = .007). Prosima had the lowest short‐term success rate (P = .027). For the long‐term mesh exposure rate (9‐year cumulative), Elevate had the lowest with 11.1%; next were Perigee‐Apogee (18.8%) and Prolift (24.6%); and Prosima had the highest with 39.4%, with a significant difference. In terms of urinary functional results, we observed no significant differences in voiding dysfunction, de novo stress urinary incontinence, or de novo overactive bladder symptoms among the four mesh groups, whether combined with midurethral sling surgery or not.
Conclusion
Different vaginal mesh designs have various advantages and features. Prolift provided the best long‐term anatomic success but had a high mesh exposure rate. Elevate gave comparable short‐term success but had a decreased long‐term success rate. However, Elevate is superior with the lowest long‐term mesh exposure rate. Prosima had the worst anatomic correction and highest mesh exposure rates. This study provides a comprehensive long‐term comparative result for POP patients and surgeons.</description><subject>anatomic success</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>long‐term outcome</subject><subject>mesh exposure</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Pelvic organ prolapse</subject><subject>Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Suburethral Slings</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Surgical mesh</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</subject><subject>transvaginal mesh</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1757-5664</issn><issn>1757-5672</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxiMEoqVw4QGQJS4I7RbbsWOHW7Uqf6SVqER7jpx4Elw5cfAki3LjEXgUnoknwWFLDxzwxTOa33wzmi_LnjN6ztJ74-cJzxkXVD_ITpmSaisLxR_ex4U4yZ4g3lJaKCbk4-wkF4KWSqjT7Ocu9KOJDsNAQkuuYvCunTbkCqLrAH59_3ExhhRs1hK63myIGSy59HAwE5ApmgEPpnOD8aQH_EJwwQl6JG4gI_iDa0iInUlJUjYjAsE5dhCXt2Tn3eCa1BfmqQmpeV3AEB-GLo2dIPYk1AgxDXJh1cdptsvT7FFrPMKzu_8su3l3eb37sN1_ev9xd7HfNrlUeitqU-iSMqO5tTXTZa0bUSsKVHGg0NQFry1vQVttlaWMSV5rSFVLW1ZQkZ9lr466afGvM-BU9Q4b8N4MEGasuCy4zvO85Al9-Q96G-aYNk5UwaSWipcyUa-PVJMOiRHaaozpnnGpGK1WH6vVx-qPjwl-cSc51z3Ye_SvcQlgR-Cb87D8R6ra31x_Por-BttNrfc</recordid><startdate>202201</startdate><enddate>202201</enddate><creator>Huang, Kuan‐Hui</creator><creator>Chen, Wen‐Hsin</creator><creator>Yang, Tsai‐Hwa</creator><creator>Wu, Ling‐Ying</creator><creator>Chang, Yu‐Wei</creator><creator>Chuang, Fei‐Chi</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202201</creationdate><title>Comparison of Prolift, Perigee‐Apogee, Prosima, and Elevate transvaginal mesh systems in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: Clinical outcomes of a long‐term observational study</title><author>Huang, Kuan‐Hui ; Chen, Wen‐Hsin ; Yang, Tsai‐Hwa ; Wu, Ling‐Ying ; Chang, Yu‐Wei ; Chuang, Fei‐Chi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3578-4ba68901a82ddb189b8c4b70e072e0ecb62bd2fe8d8d7d01152b8ee07d0f16043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>anatomic success</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>long‐term outcome</topic><topic>mesh exposure</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Pelvic organ prolapse</topic><topic>Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Suburethral Slings</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Surgical mesh</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</topic><topic>transvaginal mesh</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huang, Kuan‐Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Wen‐Hsin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Tsai‐Hwa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Ling‐Ying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chang, Yu‐Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chuang, Fei‐Chi</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Lower urinary tract symptoms</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huang, Kuan‐Hui</au><au>Chen, Wen‐Hsin</au><au>Yang, Tsai‐Hwa</au><au>Wu, Ling‐Ying</au><au>Chang, Yu‐Wei</au><au>Chuang, Fei‐Chi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Prolift, Perigee‐Apogee, Prosima, and Elevate transvaginal mesh systems in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: Clinical outcomes of a long‐term observational study</atitle><jtitle>Lower urinary tract symptoms</jtitle><addtitle>Low Urin Tract Symptoms</addtitle><date>2022-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>47</spage><epage>56</epage><pages>47-56</pages><issn>1757-5664</issn><eissn>1757-5672</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To evaluate and compare the long‐term clinical outcomes of four different transvaginal mesh systems.
Methods
This retrospective study included 695 patients classified into four groups (Prolift, n = 132; Perigee‐Apogee, n = 186; Prosima, n = 60; Elevate; n = 317), with a median follow‐up time of 5.8 years (range 0.5‐12.2 years). The outcomes were objective anatomic success (Pelvic Organ Prolapse [POP] Quantification system stage ≤1), mesh exposure, and urologic functional assessments.
Results
For anatomic outcomes, we stepwise analyzed the short‐term (within 3 years) and long‐term (after 3 years) results. Prolift had the highest long‐term success rate (9 years: 82.1%, P = .007). Elevate had a comparable short‐term success rate (3 years: 87.5%), but its long‐term success rate significantly decreased over time (5 years: 78.6%, 9 years: 66.8%, P = .007). Prosima had the lowest short‐term success rate (P = .027). For the long‐term mesh exposure rate (9‐year cumulative), Elevate had the lowest with 11.1%; next were Perigee‐Apogee (18.8%) and Prolift (24.6%); and Prosima had the highest with 39.4%, with a significant difference. In terms of urinary functional results, we observed no significant differences in voiding dysfunction, de novo stress urinary incontinence, or de novo overactive bladder symptoms among the four mesh groups, whether combined with midurethral sling surgery or not.
Conclusion
Different vaginal mesh designs have various advantages and features. Prolift provided the best long‐term anatomic success but had a high mesh exposure rate. Elevate gave comparable short‐term success but had a decreased long‐term success rate. However, Elevate is superior with the lowest long‐term mesh exposure rate. Prosima had the worst anatomic correction and highest mesh exposure rates. This study provides a comprehensive long‐term comparative result for POP patients and surgeons.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</pub><pmid>34409747</pmid><doi>10.1111/luts.12408</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1757-5664 |
| ispartof | Lower urinary tract symptoms, 2022-01, Vol.14 (1), p.47-56 |
| issn | 1757-5664 1757-5672 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2562833392 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals |
| subjects | anatomic success Clinical outcomes Female Humans long‐term outcome mesh exposure Observational studies Pelvic organ prolapse Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery Retrospective Studies Suburethral Slings Success Surgical mesh Surgical Mesh - adverse effects transvaginal mesh Treatment Outcome |
| title | Comparison of Prolift, Perigee‐Apogee, Prosima, and Elevate transvaginal mesh systems in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: Clinical outcomes of a long‐term observational study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T09%3A53%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Prolift,%20Perigee%E2%80%90Apogee,%20Prosima,%20and%20Elevate%20transvaginal%20mesh%20systems%20in%20pelvic%20organ%20prolapse%20surgery:%20Clinical%20outcomes%20of%20a%20long%E2%80%90term%20observational%20study&rft.jtitle=Lower%20urinary%20tract%20symptoms&rft.au=Huang,%20Kuan%E2%80%90Hui&rft.date=2022-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=47&rft.epage=56&rft.pages=47-56&rft.issn=1757-5664&rft.eissn=1757-5672&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/luts.12408&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2615857295%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2615857295&rft_id=info:pmid/34409747&rfr_iscdi=true |