ArticleBioMed research international2015
Comparison of clinical outcomes using "elevate anterior" versus "Perigee" system devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Favorable Postoperative Outcomes After Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Using a Wide-Arm ORIHIME® Mesh.Cureus · 2024Article
- Predictors of Clinical Outcome in Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Who Underwent Transvaginal Mesh Reconstruction Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Pelvic organ prolapse and sexual function.Nature reviews. Urology · 2020Review
- Predictors for de novo stress urinary incontinence following pelvic reconstruction surgery with transvaginal single-incisional mesh.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Changes in Sexual Function Following Uphold Transvaginal mesh Surgery for the Treatment of Urogenital Prolapse.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Laparoscopic Organopexy with Non-mesh Genital (LONG) Suspension: A Novel Uterine Preservation Procedure for the Treatment of Apical Prolapse.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare clinical outcomes using the Perigee versus Elevate anterior devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). STUDY
designOne 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.
resultsDespite 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).
conclusionsWith comparable success rates, the Elevate procedure has advantages over the Perigee surgery with lower extrusion rate and postoperative day 1 VAS scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.