Anatomical and Functional Outcomes of Perigee and Apogee Mesh in Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Versus Gynecare Prolift
Condition: Pelvic Organ Prolapse
MeSH terms: Prolapse; Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Study type: Interventional

Summary: 
      The investigators designed a prospective study in this article to evaluate the efficacy, the
      life quality and the complications of two different meshes of type I (one is Perigee/Apogee,
      the other is named Gynecare prolift) versus traditional surgery, and also studied the
      influence of some surgical procedures on the prognosis.
    

Detailed description: 
      Pelvic organ prolapse is defined as a downward descent of the pelvic organs that results in
      the protrusion of vagina, uterus, or both. The investigators designed a prospective study in
      this article to evaluate the efficacy, the life quality and the complications of two
      different meshes of type I (one is Perigee/Apogee, the other is named Gynecare prolift)
      versus traditional surgery. The investigators also studied the influence of some surgical
      procedures on the prognosis. In this study，The investigators divided the patients randomly
      into three groups :the group A was a total of 91 patients who accepted transvaginal
      hysterectomy and total pelvic floor reconstruction combined Perigee and Apogee polypropylene
      mesh(PA)；the group B was a total of 97 patients who accepted transvaginal hysterectomy and
      total pelvic floor reconstruction with Gynecare prolift polypropylene mesh；the group C was a
      total of 70 patients who accepted transvaginal hysterectomy and anterior and posterior
      vaginal wall repair without any mesh.The investigators did POP-Q measurements and
      questionnaire preoperatively and postoperatively and recorded volume of bleeding，day of
      postoperative indwelling catheter and the mesh complications。
    

Intervention name(s): Perigee and Apogee Mesh; Gynecare Prolift Mesh; Traditional Surgery
Intervention type(s): Device; Device; Procedure
Intervention description(s): The investigators divided the patients randomly into three groups :the group A received Perigee and Apogee polypropylene mesh(PA)；the group B received Gynecare prolift polypropylene mesh；the group C was without any mesh.; The investigators divided the patients randomly into three groups :the group A received Perigee and Apogee polypropylene mesh(PA)；the group B received Gynecare prolift polypropylene mesh；the group C was without any mesh.; The investigators divided the patients randomly into three groups :the group A received Perigee and Apogee polypropylene mesh(PA)；the group B received Gynecare prolift polypropylene mesh；the group C was without any mesh.
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention model: Parallel Assignment
Intervention model description: The investigators divided the patients randomly into three groups:
The group A was a total of 91 patients who accepted transvaginal hysterectomy and total pelvic floor reconstruction combined Perigee and Apogee polypropylene mesh(PA)；
The group B was a total of 97 patients who accepted transvaginal hysterectomy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with Gynecare prolift polypropylene mesh；
The group C was a total of 70 patients who accepted transvaginal hysterectomy and anterior and posterior vaginal wall repair without any mesh.
Masking: Double (Participant, Investigator)
Primary purpose: Device Feasibility
Keywords: Quality of life; Vaginal mesh; Mesh complications