Pelvic Organ ProlapsePhase 3NCT01182090
Surgical Correction of Pelvic Organ Prolapse
A Phase 3 study testing Colposacropexy in people with Pelvic Organ Prolapse, run by University Of Perugia at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
Objective: This prospective randomized trial evaluated outcomes of colposacropexy performed either by open or by conventional laparoscopic approach as therapy for uterovaginal prolapse. Surgical techniques, efficacy and overall results are compared. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 75 years, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- What is being tested?
- Colposacropexy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- Aug 2010to Sep 2012
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 75 years
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Study inclusion criteria were POP > 2, age ≥ 18 and ≤ 75 yrs.
Who cannot join
- Malignant uterus lesion (leiomyoma, fibromyoma, cervical or endometrial carcinoma)
- Active pelvic inflammatory disease,
- Known hypersensitivity to synthetic materials (polypropylene or polyglycolic acid)
- Pregnancy or lactation
- Evidence of clinically significant cardiovascular, renal, hepatic or respiratory diseases; and
- Any condition that in the judgment of the investigators would interfere with the subject's ability to provide informed consent, comply with study instructions, place the subject at increased risk, or which might confound interpretation of study results.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Italy1 site
Department of Medical-Surgical Specialties and Public Health, Section of Urology and Andrology
Perugia, 06100
About this study
Official title: OPEN SURGERY VS LAPAROSCOPY IN SURGERY OF PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE
Objective:
This prospective randomized trial evaluated outcomes of colposacropexy performed either by open or by conventional laparoscopic approach as therapy for uterovaginal prolapse. Surgical techniques, efficacy and overall results are compared.
Methods:
In this prospective study 40 consecutive patients with uro-genital prolapse are randomized to sacropexy: 20 by an open approach, 20 by a conventional laparoscopy approach. Anchorage is achieved in both groups by two polypropylene meshes.
Check-ups were scheduled at 3, 6, 12 months and then yearly. Pre-operative patient characteristics, operative and post-operative events and follow-up results are recorded.
Read the detailed description
Surgical technique In both open or laparoscopic approach the anterior vaginal wall is dissected from the bladder to expose a vaginal wall area of at least 3 x 5 cms where the mesh will be attached with four-five Polyglycolic 0 sutures. The procedure is repeated for the posterior vaginal wall, where the mesh will be attached with three-four Polyglycolic 0 sutures.
The sacral promontory surface is prepared and 1 or 2 non-reabsorbable 0.0 sutures are placed into the sacral periosteum about 2 cm below the promontory. A sub-peritoneal tunnel is created through which meshes are passed avoiding traction to the sacrum. The peritoneum is closed over the meshes.
- Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Being tested
- Colposacropexy
- Keywords
- pelvic organ prolapse, colposacropexy, surgery
- Medical subject headings
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ColposacropexyProcedure or surgery
In open approach the anterior vaginal wall is dissected from the bladder to expose a vaginal wall area of at least 3 x 5 cms where the mesh will be attached with four-five Polyglycolic 0 sutures. The procedure is repeated for the posterior vaginal wall, where the mesh will be attached with three-four Polyglycolic 0 sutures. The sacral promontory surface is prepared and 1 or 2 non-reabsorbable 0.0 sutures are placed into the sacral periosteum about 2 cm below the promontory. A sub-peritoneal tunnel is created through which meshes are passed avoiding traction to the sacrum. The peritoneum is closed over the meshes.
ColposacropexyProcedure or surgery
In laparoscopic approach the anterior vaginal wall is dissected from the bladder to expose a vaginal wall area of at least 3 x 5 cms where the mesh will be attached with four-five Polyglycolic 0 sutures. The procedure is repeated for the posterior vaginal wall, where the mesh will be attached with three-four Polyglycolic 0 sutures. The sacral promontory surface is prepared and 1 or 2 non-reabsorbable 0.0 sutures are placed into the sacral periosteum about 2 cm below the promontory. A sub-peritoneal tunnel is created through which meshes are passed avoiding traction to the sacrum. The peritoneum is closed over the meshes.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Prolapse repair by open approach | Active comparator | Correction of urogenital prolapse by open surgery approach Receives: Procedure: Colposacropexy |
| Prolapse repair by laparoscopic approach | Active comparator | Correction of urogenital prolapse by laparoscopic approach Receives: Procedure: Colposacropexy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Operative morbidity and adverse events
Operative morbidity according to Clavien-Dindo classification, measure of perioperative pain with Visual Analogue Score VAS, post-operative adverse events constitute the outcome measures, together with operating time, intra-operative blood loss and length of hospital stay.
Measured: 2 years
Secondary outcomes (1)
Subjective and objective success rate, Patient satisfaction
Success rate: subjective success is absence of symptoms related to prolapse or incontinence using Urogenital Distress Inventory (URI-6) and Impact Incontinence Quality of Life (IIQ-7). Patient satisfaction is defined by replies to the questions of whether the patient is satisfied and would repeat the operation. Objective success is defined as no vaginal prolapse greater or equal to grade 2 at any vaginal site, while the patient performed Valsalva's manouever.
Measured: 2 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Aug 2010 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2010
- Primary completionSep 2012
- Study completionSep 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Pelvic Organ ProlapseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Of Perugia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Luigi Mearini, University Of Perugia
- Investigators
- Massimo Porena, MD Prof in Chief, Study director, Department of Medical-Surgical Specialties and Public Health, Section of Urology and Andrology
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01182090
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UPerugia
- Status last verified
- Jul 2010
- First submitted
- 12 Aug 2010
- Last updated
- 20 May 2014
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Costantini E, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A, Mearini E, Porena M. Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. Eur Urol. 2005 Oct;48(4):642-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.022.
PubMed 15964131Costantini E, Zucchi A, Giannantoni A, Mearini L, Bini V, Porena M. Must colposuspension be associated with sacropexy to prevent postoperative urinary incontinence? Eur Urol. 2007 Mar;51(3):788-94. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.034. Epub 2006 Sep 5.
PubMed 17011699Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Del Zingaro M, Zucchi A, Porena M. Burch colposuspension does not provide any additional benefit to pelvic organ prolapse repair in patients with urinary incontinence: a randomized surgical trial. J Urol. 2008 Sep;180(3):1007-12. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.023. Epub 2008 Jul 17.
PubMed 18639302
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 May 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- OPEN SURGERY VS LAPAROSCOPY IN SURGERY OF PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01182090
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- UPerugia
- Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Keywords
- pelvic organ prolapse, colposacropexy, surgery
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University Of PerugiaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Aug 2010
- Primary completion
- Sep 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Sep 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Aug 2010 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Objective:
This prospective randomized trial evaluated outcomes of colposacropexy performed either by open or by conventional laparoscopic approach as therapy for uterovaginal prolapse. Surgical techniques, efficacy and overall results are compared.
Methods:
In this prospective study 40 consecutive patients with uro-genital prolapse are randomized to sacropexy: 20 by an open approach, 20 by a conventional laparoscopy approach. Anchorage is achieved in both groups by two polypropylene meshes.
Check-ups were scheduled at 3, 6, 12 months and then yearly. Pre-operative patient characteristics, operative and post-operative events and follow-up results are recorded.
Detailed description
Surgical technique In both open or laparoscopic approach the anterior vaginal wall is dissected from the bladder to expose a vaginal wall area of at least 3 x 5 cms where the mesh will be attached with four-five Polyglycolic 0 sutures. The procedure is repeated for the posterior vaginal wall, where the mesh will be attached with three-four Polyglycolic 0 sutures.
The sacral promontory surface is prepared and 1 or 2 non-reabsorbable 0.0 sutures are placed into the sacral periosteum about 2 cm below the promontory. A sub-peritoneal tunnel is created through which meshes are passed avoiding traction to the sacrum. The peritoneum is closed over the meshes.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Prolapse repair by open approach | Active comparator | Procedure: ColposacropexyCorrection of urogenital prolapse by open surgery approach |
| Prolapse repair by laparoscopic approach | Active comparator | Procedure: ColposacropexyCorrection of urogenital prolapse by laparoscopic approach |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 75 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Study inclusion criteria were POP > 2, age ≥ 18 and ≤ 75 yrs.
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Malignant uterus lesion (leiomyoma, fibromyoma, cervical or endometrial carcinoma)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| ColposacropexyIn open approach the anterior vaginal wall is dissected from the bladder to expose a vaginal wall area of at least 3 x 5 cms where the mesh will be attached with four-five Polyglycolic 0 sutures. The procedure is repeated for the posterior vaginal wall, where the mesh will be attached with three-four Polyglycolic 0 sutures. The sacral promontory surface is prepared and 1 or 2 non-reabsorbable 0.0 sutures are placed into the sacral periosteum about 2 cm below the promontory. A sub-peritoneal tunnel is created through which meshes are passed avoiding traction to the sacrum. The peritoneum is closed over the meshes. | Procedure or surgery | Prolapse repair by open approach |
| ColposacropexyIn laparoscopic approach the anterior vaginal wall is dissected from the bladder to expose a vaginal wall area of at least 3 x 5 cms where the mesh will be attached with four-five Polyglycolic 0 sutures. The procedure is repeated for the posterior vaginal wall, where the mesh will be attached with three-four Polyglycolic 0 sutures. The sacral promontory surface is prepared and 1 or 2 non-reabsorbable 0.0 sutures are placed into the sacral periosteum about 2 cm below the promontory. A sub-peritoneal tunnel is created through which meshes are passed avoiding traction to the sacrum. The peritoneum is closed over the meshes. | Procedure or surgery | Prolapse repair by laparoscopic approach |
Primary outcome
Operative morbidity and adverse events
Time frame: 2 years
Operative morbidity according to Clavien-Dindo classification, measure of perioperative pain with Visual Analogue Score VAS, post-operative adverse events constitute the outcome measures, together with operating time, intra-operative blood loss and length of hospital stay.
1 secondary outcome
Subjective and objective success rate, Patient satisfaction
Time frame: 2 years
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 20 May 2014.
- Background: PubMed 15964131Costantini E, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A, Mearini E, Porena M. Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. Eur Urol. 2005 Oct;48(4):642-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.022.
- Background: PubMed 17011699Costantini E, Zucchi A, Giannantoni A, Mearini L, Bini V, Porena M. Must colposuspension be associated with sacropexy to prevent postoperative urinary incontinence? Eur Urol. 2007 Mar;51(3):788-94. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.034. Epub 2006 Sep 5.
- Background: PubMed 18639302Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Del Zingaro M, Zucchi A, Porena M. Burch colposuspension does not provide any additional benefit to pelvic organ prolapse repair in patients with urinary incontinence: a randomized surgical trial. J Urol. 2008 Sep;180(3):1007-12. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.023. Epub 2008 Jul 17.
- university of perugiaLink provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Return to Physical Activity After Retropublic Transvaginal Sling and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy
Stress Urinary Incontinence, Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Active, not recruitingObservational study
i-Stitch for Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation (SSLF)
Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Genital Prolapse
Recruiting
Safety and Performance of a Pelvic Floor Mesh Implant for Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy (ProGYNious)
Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), Synthetic Mesh
Recruiting
Pelvic Floor Muscle Training During Pregnancy
Urinary Incontinence, Anal Incontinence
Not yet recruiting
Perineal Protection Device for Reducing Perineal Trauma During Vaginal Delivery in First-time Mothers: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, Perineal Laceration
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Massimo Porena, MD Prof in Chief study director
Department of Medical-Surgical Specialties and Public Health, Section of Urology and Andrology
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Colposacropexy in people with Pelvic Organ Prolapse, run by University Of Perugia at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 May 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Operative morbidity and adverse events (time frame: 2 years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01182090, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 May 2014.