MedTrace Logo

2-D and 3-D Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

NCT02610985 · Status: UNKNOWN · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 400

Last updated 2018-04-03

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

Background:

No randomised trials have been conducted, and only a single retrospective study exists comparing 3D and 2D laparoscopic hysterectomy. In that study, operative time for hysterectomy was significantly lower for 3D compared to 2D conventional laparoscopy. Complication rates were similar for the two groups. Thus, although one out of nine women is hysterectomized and although laparoscopy is one of the recommended routes of surgery, evidence whether to choose 2D laparoscopy, 3D laparoscopy is sparse.

Objective:

To compare pain and recurrence to usual activity level. Secondary to compare complications during the operation, postoperative complications, time to return to work, length of hospital stay and operative time.

Design:

Investigator-initiated, blinded, randomised controlled trial.

Intervention description:

Operative procedures follow the same principles and the same standard whether the surgeon's vision is 2D or 3D.

Trial size Roskilde/Herlev Hospital, Denmark:

200 patients in each arm of the study.

Conditions

  • Fibroma, Bleeding

Interventions

DEVICE

3-D laparoscopy

3-D laparoscopy

DEVICE

2-D laparoscopy

2-D laparoscopy

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Zealand University Hospital

    lead OTHER

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Sex
FEMALE
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2016-09-30
Primary Completion
2018-12-31

Countries

  • Denmark

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT02610985 on ClinicalTrials.gov