Histological Characterization of Vaginal Cuff Tissue Using Different Energy Sources During Robotic Hysterectomy

NCT ID: NCT01846858

Last Updated: 2014-12-19

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

Total Enrollment

31 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2013-04-30

Study Completion Date

2014-08-31

Brief Summary

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

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.

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.

Extent of Thermal Injury Using Different Energy Sources at the Time of Robotic Hysterectomy Procedure

Study Design

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

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

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

CO2 Laser

No interventions assigned to this group

Monopolar energy

No interventions assigned to this group

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Female
* Patient over age of 18 years undergoing a robotic total hysterectomy
* Patients in Mayo Clinic (Arizona)

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients with gynecologic malignancy involving the vagina
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.

Mayo Clinic

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Rosanne M. Kho, M.D.

Associate Professor of Obstetrics-Gynecology

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

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

Rosanne M Kho, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Mayo Clinic

Locations

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

Mayo Clinic in Arizona

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Countries

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

United States

Other Identifiers

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

10-001538

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id