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.
WITHDRAWN
NA
INTERVENTIONAL
2024-10-15
2026-11-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Robotic-assisted Hysterectomy: Single- vs. Multi-port Laparoscopic Access
NCT03373513
Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy-RALH- Postoperative Complications, Quality of Life and Health Economics
NCT01761721
Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Conventional Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy
NCT02118974
Study of Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy at a Teaching Institution
NCT01581905
Study Comparing Conventional vs. Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy
NCT00485355
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Postoperative pain and split times spent at the operation theatre will be registered as secondary outcome parameters.
A follow-up at 1, 3 and 6 month include evaluation of the scar and registration of port-site hernias and vaginal dehiscence or other complications. Interviews and diaries will include time of return to home and work, daily activities including sexuality The R-SSH is performed using da Vinci, Xi robotic system. One single port, diameter 2 cm is applied. Applying an additional assistant port is defined conversion of procedure R-MSH is performed using standard equipment and 4 trocars, 5 mm each.
Sample size calculation was based a previous study on fast track hysterectomy, which showed a difference in return to work of 4 days. 62 women in each group is needed with standard deviation ±8 and a power of 80%. To include those not working, the calculation was performed with an expected visual analog pain score of 0.86 ±0.2 and 62 in each group and suggested that the sample was sufficient to detect of difference of 0.1 in visual analog pain score with a power of 80%. All calculation are based on two-sided testing with alpha of 0.05.
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
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Robotic single-site hysterectomy
Robotic single-site hysterectomy is performed in this arm
Robotic assisted hysterectomy
Periumbilical single incision vs multiple abdominal incisions for hysterectomy
Robotic multi-site hysterectomy
Robotic multi-site hysterectomy is performed in this arm
Robotic assisted hysterectomy
Periumbilical single incision vs multiple abdominal incisions for hysterectomy
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Robotic assisted hysterectomy
Periumbilical single incision vs multiple abdominal incisions for hysterectomy
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* American Society of Anesthetists group 1 or 2,
* BMI less than 30 kg/m2
* uterine size less than 300 g estimated by ultrasound, using Ferraris formula.
Exclusion Criteria
* prior extensive abdominal surgery
* prior midline incision
* cutis laxa of abdomen surgery
* endometriosis
* more than 1 cesarean section
* malignant disease
18 Years
85 Years
FEMALE
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Herlev Hospital
OTHER
Herning Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Finn Lauszus
Associate professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Finn F Lauszus, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Herning Hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Gynecology Dept. Herning Hospital
Herning, , Denmark
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
El Hachem L, Andikyan V, Mathews S, Friedman K, Poeran J, Shieh K, Geoghegan M, Gretz HF 3rd. Robotic Single-Site and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecology: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis of a Matched Case-Control Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jul-Aug;23(5):760-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.03.005. Epub 2016 Mar 15.
Golkar FC, Ross SB, Sperry S, Vice M, Luberice K, Donn N, Morton C, Hernandez JM, Rosemurgy AS. Patients' perceptions of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: the cosmetic effect. Am J Surg. 2012 Nov;204(5):751-61. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.07.026.
Sandberg EM, la Chapelle CF, van den Tweel MM, Schoones JW, Jansen FW. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 May;295(5):1089-1103. doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4323-y. Epub 2017 Mar 29.
Yeung PP Jr, Bolden CR, Westreich D, Sobolewski C. Patient preferences of cosmesis for abdominal incisions in gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Jan-Feb;20(1):79-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.09.008.
Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BW, Kluivers KB. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;2015(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5.
Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, Levinson H. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty. 2010 Jun 21;10:e43.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Single site robot study
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.