Our study is a non-randomized prospective study compared two groups matched for anterior/apical POP-Q grade: 84 received Elevate Ant™ single-incision mesh (group A) and 42 Perigee™ transvaginal mesh (group B). The study hypothesis was that the Elevate Ant™ mesh would provide better apical correction than the Perigee™ mesh. One- and 2-year follow-up comprised anatomic assessment (POP-Q) and QoL (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12). Success was defined as 2-year POP-Q ≤1. Secondary endpoints were function and complications.
Age range
18 Years
Sex
FEMALE
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
comparison of anatomic correction rates in the vaginal apex at 1 year between two mesh kits
Timeframe: 1 year post-surgery