Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
NA
123 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2005-10-31
2007-06-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Patients \>= 35 wks gestation undergoing cesarean delivery will be randomized to bladder flap vs. none. Primary outcome is operative time (start to delivery); secondary outcomes include: injuries, EBL, intra-operative and post-operative complications,pain medication, hospital stay duration.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
2. Background (This section should be used to provide a rationale for the conduct of the study. Refer to existent or preliminary studies as necessary) The standard of care in performing cesarean delivery is to perform a bladder flap in the procedures.1 The creation of a bladder flap essentially allows a surgeon to create a space between the uterus and the bladder so that he/she has better access to the lower portion of the uterus where a low transverse incision can be made. This procedure involves making a superficial incision into the peritoneum, or the cell lining of the abdominal cavity, and the moving the bladder down and away from the lower portion of the uterus. A retractor or a bladder blade is then inserted into this space to hold the bladder away from the uterus (see Appendix A).2 Use of the bladder flap in cesarean delivery dates back to 1878 in the pre-antibiotic era,3 and theoretically, the bladder flap allows better access to the low portion of the uterus while decreasing risk of bladder injury and infection. However, several recent but small studies suggest the inclusion of the bladder flap confers no advantage and may actually contribute to greater morbidity postoperatively. 4-5 Additionally, the incidence of bladder injuries is 0.3%, and most injuries resulted during the formation of the bladder flap.6 The evidence from these studies are limited by the inclusion of other modifications in surgical procedures and a lack of replication of results, respectively. Thus there is insufficient evidence to either support or reject the inclusion of bladder flaps in cesarean deliveries (Evidence grade C).7-8
3. Specific Objectives (Enumerate the objectives and nature of the measured end-points. Justify the use of surrogate clinical end-points as necessary)
1\. To compare outcomes in cesarean section patients undergoing bladder flap versus none.
4\. Study design (Explicate the nature of the study - observational vs experimental. Differentiate between cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional and randomized clinical trials. For the latter, provide sufficient supporting justification for the experimental arm. If it is a placebo-controlled trial, please state whether clinical equipoise exists between the placebo and experimental arm.) Randomized controlled trial.
Endpoints:
Total operating time (continuous) and Time of delivery to end of surgery (continuous) Estimated blood loss (continuous) Post operative fever (categorical) Bladder injury (categorical) Pre- and post-operative pain medication (continuous) and Analog pain scale (continuous)
5\. Subject Selection (Include an enumeration of inclusion and exclusion criteria)
MAHEC patients presenting for delivery at Mission Hospitals requiring a cesarean section
Inclusion Exclusion Cesarean section All vaginal deliveries
≥ 35 weeks gestation \< 35 weeks gestation Able to provide consent for medical treatment Urgent cesarean section Unable to provide consent for medical treatment Medical complications prohibitive of bladder flap Medical complications prohibitive of no bladder flap
6\. Statistical methods, data analysis and interpretation (Include the factors considered in determining an appropriate sample size) Sample size of 100 per group based on an estimated mean difference of 5 minutes on total operating time (study arm 45±12.5 vs. bladder flap arm 50±12.5; Power=080; alpha=0.05; two-tailed).4
Per protocol analysis utilizing analysis of variance or for continuous variables and chi square analysis of categorical variables.
7\. Study Procedures (Describe the chronological flow of the study, using schematic diagrams as necessary. Distinguish clearly between treatment-related \[medically-indicated\] and research-related procedures the subject will undergo)
All OB patients presenting at L\&D for delivery will be approached for informed consent. consenting patients for whom a cesarean delivery is medically indicated will be randomized to bladder flap vs. none. Patients unable to consent for medical treatment or not wishing to consent for the project will be excluded. Consenting patients for whom a cesarean is medically indicated will be randomly assigned to bladder flap vs. by previously allocation of subject number. Patients will undergo assigned procedure unless excluded at the discretion of the surgeons who determine the alternate procedure is medically indicated. Patients undergoing the assigned procedure will have all data extracted from hospital medical records and entered into SPSS for a per-protocol analysis.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
bladder flap during cesarean section
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Able to provide informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
* Delivery \< 35 weeks gestation;
* STAT surgery;
* Unable to provide consent;
* Medical complication/condition incompatable with random asiignment
FEMALE
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Mountain Area Health Organization Center
OTHER
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Eric C Helms, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
MAHEC OB/GYN
Shelley L Galvin, MA
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
MAHEC OB/GYN
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Mission Hospitals
Asheville, North Carolina, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, Joura EA. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;98(6):1089-92. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01570-8.
Wood RM, Simon H, Oz AU. Pelosi-type vs. traditional cesarean delivery. A prospective comparison. J Reprod Med. 1999 Sep;44(9):788-95.
Eisenkop SM, Richman R, Platt LD, Paul RH. Urinary tract injury during cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Nov;60(5):591-6.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
05-10-477
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id