Cost-effectiveness Comparison Between Vaginal Versus Robotic Mesh Surgery for Apical Prolapse: Prospective, Cohort Study

NCT ID: NCT03878056

Last Updated: 2022-04-08

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

147 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2018-01-01

Study Completion Date

2021-11-30

Brief Summary

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

Cost-effectiveness, safety, outcomes and diagnostic development in advanced apical female genital prolapse reconstructive surgery by vaginal and robotic-assisted mesh surgery.

A multicenter, prospective, parallel, cohort, comparative study between the vaginal and robotic-assisted mesh surgery including 200 patients.

Detailed Description

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

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition and may be disabling and limiting quality of life (QoL) among aging women. POP may arise in the anterior (cystocele), posterior (rectocele) and middle compartment (apical POP) of the vagina. Apical POP includes descent of uterus or vaginal vault (if uterus was previously removed). The lifetime risk of undergoing a single operation for POP or urinary incontinence by age 80 is 11%. In Sweden, the risk to undergo 2 pelvic floor surgery is about 130 000 women. Traditional Surgical repairs of POP using native connective tissues are commonly used but the risk for POP recurrence is high if apical prolapse is present (ca 60%). Thus, minimal invasive surgical approaches by apical trans-vaginal mesh (A-TVM) and robotic sacral colpopexy (RSC) to support the vaginal apex (middle compartment) are in progress. 1 Evidence show effectivity and improved QoL after surgery.

Vaginal and robotic accesses may be available to many patients. Vaginal approach may allow surgeon to perform surgery for all POP compartments and perineal injury in one single surgery opportunity. Contra-indications for general anesthesia and some abdominal diseases or conditions may dismiss the robotic surgery. In contrast, all patients can be operated via the vaginal approach except for patient unwellness. Thus, a direct low cost of vaginal surgery may be possible. In the other hand, costs for robotic surgery are high. Whether or not this may be reflected on cost-effectiveness based on QoL improvement after surgery has not yet been studied.

Visualising synthetic implants i.e. POP mesh and the Tension-Free Vaginal Tape (TVT) implant for urinary incontinence (UI) by ultrasonography (US) has been a subject for some studies. Using US, localisation of the TVT in correlation to urinary bladder neck and how close to urethra may explain outcomes after TVT surgery. Given its importance, knowledge of how mesh anatomical position may influence outcomes, it may be useful in further POP surgery development. Our results indicate that US can be used and is reproducible in mapping of A-TVM (manuscript).

Growing need worldwide is to have more cost-effective and safe health care. Cost-effectiveness, safety, outcomes, POP-recurrence and effects on pelvic floor dysfunction have not yet been directly compared between vaginal and robotic mesh surgery for apical POP.

Topic: Cost-Effectiveness (Vaginal vs robotic POP mesh surgery), QoL, safety and outcomes.

Conditions

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

Prolapse; Female

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.

Transvaginal mesh

Vaginal surgery (UpholdTM Lite Vaginal Support, Boston Scientific)

Vaginal: UpholdTM Lite Vaginal Support - Boston Scientific

Intervention Type DEVICE

Apical prolapse reconstructive surgery by Transvaginal mesh vs Robotic sacral colpopexy

Robotic sacral colpopexy

Robotic surgery (Artisyn® Y-Shaped Mesh - Ethicon)

Vaginal: UpholdTM Lite Vaginal Support - Boston Scientific

Intervention Type DEVICE

Apical prolapse reconstructive surgery by Transvaginal mesh vs Robotic sacral colpopexy

Interventions

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

Vaginal: UpholdTM Lite Vaginal Support - Boston Scientific

Apical prolapse reconstructive surgery by Transvaginal mesh vs Robotic sacral colpopexy

Intervention Type DEVICE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Robotic: Artisyn® Y-Shaped Mesh - Ethicon

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Posthysterectomy prolapse of the vaginal apex, with or without cystocele/rectocele, where the vaginal apex descends at least 50% of the total vaginal length
* Uterine prolapse, with or without cystocele/rectocele, where the leading edge of the cervix descends at least 50% of the total vaginal length and TVL minus point C= ≤ 2 cm
* Prolapse specific pelvic symptom of pelvic heaviness and/or vaginal bulging
* Reproductive years in the past (biologically or reproductive decision)
* Being able to make an informed consent on participation
* Physically and cognitively capable of participating in the required follow-up

Exclusion Criteria

* Posthysterectomy prolapse of the vaginal apex where the vaginal apex descends less than 50% of the total vaginal length regardless of whether a cystocele/rectocele is present or not
* Uterine prolapse, with or without cystocele, where the leading edge of the cervix descends less than 50% of the total vaginal length
* If cervix elongation is present corresponding to: TVL minus point C= \>2 cm without uterine prolapse.
* If prolapse specific pelvic symptoms of pelvic heaviness and/or vaginal bulging are not present
* Previous or current pelvic organ cancer (regardless of treatment)
* Severe rheumatic disease
* Insulin treated severe diabetes mellitus
* Connective tissue disorders (SLE, Sjögrens syndrome, Marfans syndrome, Ehlers Danlos, collagenosis, polymyositis or rheumatic myalgia)
* Current systemic steroid treatment
* Other clinically relevant pelvic disorders for which surgery is indicated including stress urinary incontinence.
* Decision to perform prolapse surgery using other medical devices/mesh
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

99 Years

Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

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

Karolinska Institutet

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Edward Morcos

Principle investigator, Head of Urogynecology

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

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

Edward Morcos, MD, PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Karolinska Institutet Danderyds Sjukhus (KIDS)

Locations

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

Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet Danderyd University Hospital

Stockholm, , Sweden

Site Status

Countries

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

Sweden

Other Identifiers

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

Dnr: 2017/1988-31, 2018/380-32

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Pectopexy Autologous Vs Mesh
NCT06524700 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA