Clinical Study
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Using “Elevate Anterior” versus “Perigee” System Devices for the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Table 1
Clinical background of patients with pelvic organ prolapse in both groups. Data are given as mean ± standard deviation, median [range], or
(%).
| | Perigee ( = 91) | Elevate ( = 50) | values |
| Mean age (years) | 61.0 ± 12.0 | 62.9 ± 9.8 | 0.32 | Mean parity | 3.4 ± 1.3 | 3.3 ± 1.3 | 0.72 | Mean BMI (kg/m2) | 23.7 ± 3.5 | 24.5 ± 3.7 | 0.21 | Menopause | 72 (79.1) | 44 (88.0) | 0.19 | Current hormone therapy | 5 (5.5) | 4 (8.0) | 0.72∧ | Diabetes mellitus | 10 (11.0) | 9 (18.0) | 0.14 | Hypertension | 20 (22.0) | 18 (36.0) | 0.07 | History of hysterectomy | 9 (9.9) | 10 (20.0) | 0.09 | History of POP repair | 3 (3.3) | 5 (10.0) | 0.13∧ | POP | | | | Stage 2 | 20 (22.0) | 10 (20.0) | 0.78 | Stage 3 | 66 (72.5) | 38 (76.0) | 0.65 | Stage 4 | 5 (5.5) | 2 (4.0) | 1.0∧ | Concomitant procedures | | | | Posterior repair | 3 (3.3) | 2 (4.0) | 1.0∧ | Vaginal hysterectomy | 17 (18.7) | 16 (32.0) | 0.07 | Midurethral sling | 58 (63.7) | 27 (54.0) | 0.26 |
|
|
BMI, body mass index; POP, pelvic organ prolapse; Student’s -test; Chi-square test; ∧Fisher’s exact test.
|