Comparison Between Transvaginal Mesh and Traditional Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

NCT ID: NCT00566917

Last Updated: 2010-01-29

Study Results

Results pending

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.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE4

Total Enrollment

400 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2007-12-31

Study Completion Date

2010-01-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Pelvic organ prolapse is characterized by a lack of pelvic floor support causing the pelvic organs and vaginal walls to protrude. For decades, suture repair techniques have been the primary choice of surgical treatment when indicated.

Traditional surgical techniques are frequently associated with unsatisfying anatomical recurrence rates and it is plausible that inherently weak, or damaged, pelvic floor supportive tissues need to be reinforced by a permanent support to avoid the high rates of recurrences commonly described using traditional techniques. Over the years sporadic attempts have been made to introduce novel surgical techniques using a variety of biomaterials with varying success. Despite a lack of clinical safety data, or compelling clinical evidence demonstrating that it improves outcomes compared to traditional suture techniques, use of biomaterials in pelvic reconstructive surgery has become widespread in just a few years .

It is likely that biomaterials need to be "anchored" in tissues not afflicted by the disease, in order to provide the intended pelvic floor support. This has given rise to transvaginal surgical techniques using a transobturator approach passing the mesh through the arcus tendineous fascia pelvis, or the sacrospinous ligaments through a transgluteal approach. Short term data from concluded and on-going safety assessments of these techniques has provided promising results and satisfying clinical outcomes. The aim of the present study is to compare anterior mesh repair (PROLIFT®) with traditional suture repair in a randomised trial.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Vaginal Prolapse

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

Vagina Prolapse Anterior vaginal wall prolapse

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

1

Anterior colporrhaphy (standardised)

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Anterior colporrhaphy

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Standardised colporrhaphy of the anterior vaginal wall

2

Anterior PROLIFT

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Anterior PROLIFT

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Transvaginal mesh surgery of the anterior vaginal wall

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Anterior colporrhaphy

Standardised colporrhaphy of the anterior vaginal wall

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Anterior PROLIFT

Transvaginal mesh surgery of the anterior vaginal wall

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Reproductive years in the past (biologically or reproductive decision)
* Prolapse of the anterior vaginal wall ≥POPQ-stadium II
* Prolapse specific pelvic symptom
* Being able to make an informed consent on participation
* Physically and cognitive capable of participating in the required follow-up
* No other pelvic floor surgery performed at the time of anterior repair

Exclusion Criteria

* Previous or current pelvic organ cancer (regardless of treatment)
* Severe rheumatic disease
* Insulin treated diabetes mellitus
* Connective tissue disorders (SLE, Sjögrens syndrome, Marfans syndrome, Ehlers Danhlos, collagenosis, polymyositis eller rheumatic myalgia)
* Current systemic steroid treatment
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

The regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm county council and Karolinska Institutet.

UNKNOWN

Sponsor Role collaborator

The Swedish Society of Medicine

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Investigators meetings supported by Gynecare Scandinavia.

UNKNOWN

Sponsor Role collaborator

Karolinska Institutet

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Karolinska Institutet

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Daniel Altman, MD, Assoc. prof.

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Karolinska Institutet

Christian Falconer, MD, Assoc. prof.

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Karolinska Institutet at Danderyd University Hospital

Daniel Altman, MD, Assoc. prof.

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Karolinska Institutet

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Nyköbing Hospital

Nyköbing, , Denmark

Site Status

Skejby Hospital

Skejby, , Denmark

Site Status

Hyvinkää Hospital

Hyvinkää, , Finland

Site Status

Jorvi Hospital

Jorvi, , Finland

Site Status

Central Finland Central Finland

Jyväskylä, , Finland

Site Status

Central Finland Central Hospital

Kotka, , Finland

Site Status

South Carelian Central Hospital

Lappeenranta, , Finland

Site Status

Lohja Hospital

Lohja, , Finland

Site Status

Porvoo Hospital

Porvoo, , Finland

Site Status

Lapland Central Hospital

Rovaniemi, , Finland

Site Status

Åbo Hospital

Turku, , Finland

Site Status

Akershus University Hospital

Ahus, , Norway

Site Status

Haukeland Hospital

Bergen, , Norway

Site Status

Innlandet Hospital

Brumunddal, , Norway

Site Status

Bærum Hospital

Bærum, , Norway

Site Status

Sörlandet Hospital

Flekkefjord, , Norway

Site Status

Förde Hospital

Förde, , Norway

Site Status

Ringerike Hospital

Hönefoss, , Norway

Site Status

Kongsberg Hospital

Kongsberg, , Norway

Site Status

Levanger Hospital

Levanger, , Norway

Site Status

Namsos Hospital

Namsos, , Norway

Site Status

Rikshospitalet

Oslo, , Norway

Site Status

Telemark Hospital

Skien, , Norway

Site Status

Stavanger University Hospital

Stavanger, , Norway

Site Status

The Regional Hospital in Tromsø

Tromsø, , Norway

Site Status

St Olav Hospital

Trondheim, , Norway

Site Status

Borås Hospital

Borås, , Sweden

Site Status

Höglandssjukhuset

Eksjö, , Sweden

Site Status

Sahlgrenska Hospital

Gothenburg, , Sweden

Site Status

Halmstad Hospital

Halmstad, , Sweden

Site Status

Huddiksvall Hospital

Huddiksvall, , Sweden

Site Status

Karlskoga Hospital

Karlskoga, , Sweden

Site Status

Karlskrona Hospital

Karlskrona, , Sweden

Site Status

Karlstad Hospital

Karlstad, , Sweden

Site Status

Kristiansstad Hospital

Kristiansstad, , Sweden

Site Status

Linköping University Hospital

Linköping, , Sweden

Site Status

Sunderby Hospital

Luleå, , Sweden

Site Status

Vrinnevi Hospital

Norrköping, , Sweden

Site Status

Capio Läkargruppen Örebro

Örebro, , Sweden

Site Status

Örebro University Hospital

Örebro, , Sweden

Site Status

Skaraborg Hospital Skövde

Skövde, , Sweden

Site Status

Södertälje Hospital

Södertälje, , Sweden

Site Status

Danderyd University Hospital

Stockholm, , Sweden

Site Status

Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge

Stockholm, , Sweden

Site Status

S:t Göran Hospital

Stockholm, , Sweden

Site Status

South Hospital

Stockholm, , Sweden

Site Status

Sundsvall Hospital

Sundsvall, , Sweden

Site Status

NÄL Hospital

Trollhättan, , Sweden

Site Status

Uppsala Academic Hospital

Uppsala, , Sweden

Site Status

Värnamo Hospital

Värnamo, , Sweden

Site Status

Västerås Hospital

Västerås, , Sweden

Site Status

Västervik Hospital

Västervik, , Sweden

Site Status

Ystad Hospital

Ystad, , Sweden

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Yeung E, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Chen Z, Wallace SA, Mowat A, Maher C. Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Mar 13;3(3):CD012079. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012079.pub2.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 38477494 (View on PubMed)

Elmer C, Falconer C, Hallin A, Larsson G, Ek M, Altman D; Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Risk factors for mesh complications after trocar guided transvaginal mesh kit repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012 Sep;31(7):1165-9. doi: 10.1002/nau.22231. Epub 2012 Apr 19.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 22517125 (View on PubMed)

Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C; Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011 May 12;364(19):1826-36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009521.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 21561348 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

TVM III-07

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id