Sacrocolpopexy Versus Sacro-spinous Fixation for Prolapse Treatment
NCT04878146 · Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 132
Last updated 2021-05-07
Summary
Prolapse is a condition that causes up to 13% of women to have surgery in their lifetime. There are many surgical techniques for the treatment of prolapse, each with its advantages and disadvantages. The techniques by vaginal approach aim to put back in tension the supporting tissue, the endopelvic fascia, damaged and released. This technique has the advantage of not causing an abdominal scar, a quick recovery and often little pain. In contrast, the use of already damaged native tissue results in a recurrence rate of up to 15% to 30%.
The other technique is the abdominal route either by laparotomy or by a minimally invasive approach such as laparoscopy, assisted or not by robotics. With this technique, we use prosthetic material introduced around the vaginal wall without opening the latter, therefore without contamination and without dissection of the vaginal wall.
During upper surgery, a subtotal hysterectomy is performed, that is to say that the uterine cervix is preserved and serves as an anchoring point for the synthetic nets which are attached to the cervix and then sutured to the promontory of the sacrum. (sacrocervicopexy).
In the vaginal route, a total hysterectomy is traditionally performed and the vaginal dome is sutured to the sacro-spinal ligament (Richter's operation). The stitches are then passed through the thickness of the often thin vaginal wall constituting a possible release point of the assembly. There are currently no studies that compare prosthetic sacrocervicopexy with fixation of the remaining cervix to the sacro-spinal ligament without prosthesis, and repair of the endopelvic fascia with native tissue. The study consists of performing a subtotal hysterectomy by minimally invasive approach in both cases and then randomize for either a prosthetic sacrocervicopexy or fixation of the remaining cervix to the sacro-spinal ligament via the abdominal or vaginal route.
Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Interventions
- PROCEDURE
-
Sacro-spinous fixation
Uterine cervix will be attached to the sacro-spinous ligament
- PROCEDURE
-
Subtotal hysterectomy
Done on both arms
- PROCEDURE
-
Sacrocolpopexy
Uterine cervix is attached to sacral promontory with two synthetic meshes
Sponsors & Collaborators
-
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois
lead OTHER
Study Design
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Model
- PARALLEL
Eligibility
- Min Age
- 30 Years
- Sex
- FEMALE
- Healthy Volunteers
- No
Timeline & Regulatory
- Start
- 2021-07-01
- Primary Completion
- 2026-06-30
- Completion
- 2028-06-30
More Related Trials
-
LAparoscopic Preventive PRErectal Mesh
NCT03766048 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
An Institutional Audit of the Short Term Complications and Long Term Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for Vault/cervical Prolapse.
NCT04378400 ·Status: ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
-
Study of Outpatient Management for Promontofixation by Laparoscopy
NCT03573752 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
The Influence of Using Vascularized Vaginal Flap on the Efficacy of Mesh-augmented Sacrospinous Hysteropexy
NCT06494982 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Assisted Promontofixation Using Glue Versus Promontofixation Using Threads (PROCOL)
NCT03624764 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Sacropexy and Vaginal Mesh Surgery for Women Cystocele Repair.
NCT02272361 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Comparison of the Effects of Sacrospinous Fixation and V-notes Lateral Suspension Operations
NCT06307873 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Vaginally Assisted Laparoscopic Sacropolpopexy
NCT04332315 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
The Influence of Simultaneous Posterior Colporrhaphy and Perineoplasty on the Efficiency and Safety of Mesh-augmented Sacrospinal Fixation (Apical Sling) in Advanced POP Repair.
NCT05422209 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Vaginal Native Tissues Repair for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
NCT03875989 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Comparative Study of Mesh Versus No Mesh in Prolapse Surgery
NCT00153257 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Sacrocolpopexy Versus Vaginal Mesh Procedure for Pelvic Prolapse
NCT01097200 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Comparison Between Transvaginal Mesh and Traditional Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
NCT00566917 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: PHASE4
-
Role of Mesh in Laparoscopic Sacropexy Surgical Techniques for the Treatment of Female Genital Prolapse
NCT06720831 ·Status: RECRUITING
-
National,Multicentric Randomised Study of the Correction of Genital Prolapse With Fascial Repair or Mesh-Prolift
NCT00771225 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: PHASE4
-
Trial to Determine Which of Two Surgical Techniques Works Better to Correct Vaginal Bulging
NCT00988975 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for Vaginal Prolapse
NCT00551993 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Effectiveness Prolift+M Versus Conventional Vaginal Prolapse Surgery
NCT02231099 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Comparison of Vaginal Axis on MRI in Alternative Apical Prolapse Surgeries to Sacrocolpopexy
NCT06072456 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Comparison of Two Vaginal Mesh Kits in the Management of Vaginal Prolapse
NCT03187574 ·Status: COMPLETED
-
Laparoscopic Central and Anterior Compartment Prolapse Surgery: A Meshless Sacrocolpopexy Technique
NCT05558852 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Multicenter Ventral Mesh Rectopexy Registry Collaborative
NCT05918367 ·Status: RECRUITING
-
Performance of Tension Free Vaginal Mesh (Prolift) Versus Conventional Vaginal Prolapse Surgery in Recurrent Prolapse.
NCT00372190 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Native Tissue Repair in Pelvic Organ Prolapse -Long-term Results and Risk of Re-operation
NCT06744972 ·Status: COMPLETED
-
Multicenter Study on the Correction of Prolapse Via Laparoscopy
NCT06815731 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA