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/m^2)	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.