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
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.
COMPLETED
147 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2018-01-01
2021-11-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
A multicenter, prospective, parallel, cohort, comparative study between the vaginal and robotic-assisted mesh surgery including 200 patients.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Intraoperative Costs and Patient Perceptions in Sacrocolpopexy for Prolapse
NCT04179955
Apical Suspension Repair for Vault Prolapse In a Three-Arm Randomized Trial Design
NCT02676973
Randomized,Multicentric Study to Treat Prolapse After Hysterectomy With Amreich Procedure or Total Prolift Procedure
NCT00572702
AMBULAPSE STUDY Feasibility Study on Laparoscopic Double-mesh Sacrocolpopexy With or Without Robotic Assistance, in Female Patients Presenting With Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Based on an Outpatient Treatment Model.
NCT03764852
Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs Robotic Sacrocolpopexy
NCT02741830
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
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.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
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
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
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
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* 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
* 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
18 Years
99 Years
FEMALE
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Karolinska Institutet
OTHER
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
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
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
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.