Extent of Thermal Injury Using Different Energy Sources at the Time of Robotic Hysterectomy ProcedureNCT01846858
Histological Characterization of Vaginal Cuff Tissue Using Different Energy Sources During Robotic Hysterectomy
An observational study of Extent of Thermal Injury Using Different Energy Sources at the Time of Robotic Hysterectomy Procedure, run by Mayo Clinic at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Vaginal cuff dehiscence, a rare complication of gynecologic surgeries, can be devastating, particularly when associated with bowel evisceration. A review of records from 1970 - 2001 at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN revealed a low incidence (0.032%) of vaginal cuff dehiscence after pelvic operation via both… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Extent of Thermal Injury Using Different Energy Sources at the Time of Robotic Hysterectomy Procedure
- How many people
- 31 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Apr 2013to Aug 2014
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients scheduled for a robotic hysterectomy for benign indications
Who may be able to join
- Female
- Patient over age of 18 years undergoing a robotic total hysterectomy
- Patients in Mayo Clinic (Arizona)
Who cannot join
- Patients with gynecologic malignancy involving the vagina
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Vaginal cuff dehiscence, a rare complication of gynecologic surgeries, can be devastating, particularly when associated with bowel evisceration. A review of records from 1970 - 2001 at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN revealed a low incidence (0.032%) of vaginal cuff dehiscence after pelvic operation via both abdominal and vaginal approaches3. At a single, large, tertiary care facility, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) was associated with an increased incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence compared to other approaches (4.93% vs. 0.29% TVH, and 0.12% TAH)1. A review of our robotic experience revealed a vaginal cuff dehiscence incidence of 4.1%, which is comparable to the previously reported incidence for TLH2. An increasing number of laparoscopic hysterectomies are being performed in the United States with the rate of laparoscopic procedures increasing from 0.3% in 1990 to 11.8% in 20034. With 11.8% of 600,000 annual hysterectomies being performed via the laparoscopic route in the United States, there would be an estimated 3,400 cases of vaginal cuff dehiscence per year.
The cause of the higher rate of vaginal cuff dehiscence in both laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies is currently unknown. One of the major differences between the laparoscopic and robotic approach as compared to the vaginal/abdominal route is the method by which the cervix is amputated from the vagina. With the vaginal and abdominal approaches, a colpotomy is made sharply with a knife or scissors. In contrast, the colpotomy is performed with electrocoagulation with the laparoscopic and robotic routes. One theory to explain the increased dehiscence incidence is the lateral thermal effects of electrocoagulation on the vaginal cuff which may adversely affect tissue healing.
This study aims primarily to shed light on the etiology of vaginal cuff healing after a robotic total hysterectomy. This will be done by comparing the extent of thermal injury at the cellular level using monopolar vs CO2 laser at the time of the colpotomy.
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| CO2 Laser | Not described | |
| Monopolar energy | Not described |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Extent of thermal injust grossly from free tissue edge (mm)
Measured: at 12 and 6 o'clock
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 May 2013 (estimated)
- Study startApr 2013
- Primary completionAug 2014
- Study completionAug 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Extent of Thermal Injury Using Different Energy Sources at the Time of Robotic Hysterectomy ProcedureStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Mayo ClinicThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 31 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mayo Clinic
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Rosanne M. Kho, M.D., Mayo Clinic
- Investigators
- Rosanne M Kho, MD, Principal investigator, Mayo Clinic
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01846858
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 10-001538
- Status last verified
- Dec 2014
- First submitted
- 1 May 2013
- Last updated
- 19 Dec 2014
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Dec 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Histological Characterization of Vaginal Cuff Tissue Using Different Energy Sources During Robotic Hysterectomy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01846858
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 10-001538
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 31 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mayo ClinicUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Apr 2013
- Primary completion
- Aug 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 May 2013 (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.
Vaginal cuff dehiscence, a rare complication of gynecologic surgeries, can be devastating, particularly when associated with bowel evisceration. A review of records from 1970 - 2001 at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN revealed a low incidence (0.032%) of vaginal cuff dehiscence after pelvic operation via both abdominal and vaginal approaches3. At a single, large, tertiary care facility, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) was associated with an increased incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence compared to other approaches (4.93% vs. 0.29% TVH, and 0.12% TAH)1. A review of our robotic experience revealed a vaginal cuff dehiscence incidence of 4.1%, which is comparable to the previously reported incidence for TLH2. An increasing number of laparoscopic hysterectomies are being performed in the United States with the rate of laparoscopic procedures increasing from 0.3% in 1990 to 11.8% in 20034. With 11.8% of 600,000 annual hysterectomies being performed via the laparoscopic route in the United States, there would be an estimated 3,400 cases of vaginal cuff dehiscence per year.
The cause of the higher rate of vaginal cuff dehiscence in both laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies is currently unknown. One of the major differences between the laparoscopic and robotic approach as compared to the vaginal/abdominal route is the method by which the cervix is amputated from the vagina. With the vaginal and abdominal approaches, a colpotomy is made sharply with a knife or scissors. In contrast, the colpotomy is performed with electrocoagulation with the laparoscopic and robotic routes. One theory to explain the increased dehiscence incidence is the lateral thermal effects of electrocoagulation on the vaginal cuff which may adversely affect tissue healing.
This study aims primarily to shed light on the etiology of vaginal cuff healing after a robotic total hysterectomy. This will be done by comparing the extent of thermal injury at the cellular level using monopolar vs CO2 laser at the time of the colpotomy.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| CO2 Laser | – | – |
| Monopolar energy | – | – |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients scheduled for a robotic hysterectomy for benign indications
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Female
- Patient over age of 18 years undergoing a robotic total hysterectomy
- Patients in Mayo Clinic (Arizona)
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients with gynecologic malignancy involving the vagina
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Extent of thermal injust grossly from free tissue edge (mm)
Time frame: at 12 and 6 o'clock
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 19 Dec 2014.
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.
Rosanne M Kho, MD principal investigator
Mayo Clinic
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Extent of Thermal Injury Using Different Energy Sources at the Time of Robotic Hysterectomy Procedure, run by Mayo Clinic at 1 site in United States.
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 3 inclusion and 1 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 19 Dec 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 United States. 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.
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?
Extent of thermal injust grossly from free tissue edge (mm) (time frame: at 12 and 6 o'clock). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 19 Dec 2014.