Pain, PostoperativeMLPS/LESSNCT01666483
Micro-laparoscopy and Single-port Hysterectomy
A study testing micro-laparoscopy and Laparoendoscopic single site surgery in people with Pain, Postoperative, run by Catholic University of the Sacred Heart at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
A total of 86 patients underwent total hysterectomy. Three of them refused randomization, 34 were randomly assigned to undergo to laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and 34 to undergo micro-laparoscopy (M-LPS).Laparoscopic hysterectomy can be safely performed by M-LPS and LESS. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 75 years, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Pain, Postoperative
- What is being tested?
- micro-laparoscopy and Laparoendoscopic single site surgery
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 71 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- May 2011to May 2012
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 75 years
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- appropriate medical status for laparoscopic surgery;
- uterine size < 12 weeks of pregnancy;
- no previous longitudinal major abdominal surgery.
Who cannot join
- pelvic organ prolapse greater than grade I
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Micro-laparoscopic Versus Single-port Total Hysterectomy: a Randomized Trial.
A total of 86 patients underwent total hysterectomy. Three of them refused randomization, 34 were randomly assigned to undergo to laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and 34 to undergo micro-laparoscopy (M-LPS).Laparoscopic hysterectomy can be safely performed by M-LPS and LESS.
Read the detailed description
Between May 2011 and February 2012 a prospective randomized study was carried out at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome-Italy.
Consenting patients scheduled to be submitted to a total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign, pre-malignant and malignant disease were evaluated for this study. Inclusion criteria for total laparoscopic hysterectomy were: appropriate medical status for laparoscopic surgery; uterine size < 12 weeks of pregnancy; no previous longitudinal major abdominal surgery. Patients who had a pelvic organ prolapse greater than grade I, were excluded from this study.
Pre-operative work-up included gynecologic examination, trans-vaginal ultrasound. In case of early endometrial and cervical cancer a staging MRI or CT was performed.
Our institutional review board approved the study (Protocol number P/473/CE/2011), and all women gave their informed consent to use their data. All patients were adequately informed concerning the possible risks and benefits of the described technique and signed a written consent agreeing to undergo the procedure and to eventual conversion to LPS or laparotomy, if necessary.
Patients were randomly assigned to either a hysterectomy with LESS or with M-LPS. The surgeon was notified of the allocation in theater on the morning of the procedure. The same surgical team performed both techniques. Assignment to one of the two surgical approaches was on 1:1, using a block randomized computer-generated list.
The operative time (OT) was defined as the interval between start incisions to closure. The intra-operative complications was defined as bowel, bladder, ureteral, or vascular injuries, and the estimated blood loss (EBL) ≥ 500 ml. Anemia was considered when hemoglobin level was ≤ 8 g/dl and fever when body temperature was at least 38C° in two consecutive measurements at least 6 hours apart, excluding the first day after surgery.
Post-operative pain assessment (in the immediate post-operative period) was performed in all patients using a validated Visual Analog Pain Scale (VAS) and scored from 0 to 10 (0 = no pain and 10 = agonizing pain). Post-operative pain was subjectively reported considering the patient at rest at 20 minutes and 2-4-8 hours after surgery. All patients were managed with the same intra-operative anesthetic protocol and post-operative analgesic drug (Paracetamol 1,000 mg) was administered only on patient's demand.
LPS conversion was defined as single or multiple 5 mm port insertion. The perioperative complications were defined as those occurring within the first month following the procedure.
Surgical Technique The operative technique is the same in the two groups with the exception of videoloparoscope, port type and some specific instruments. Once achieved pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg), a careful inspection of the entire abdominal cavity was performed as first surgical step. All surgical procedures were performed with an intrauterine manipulator. After coagulation and section of round ligament to enter into the retroperitoneal space, the ureter was visualized and a haemostatic clip was positioned at the origin of the uterine artery. In order to safely cauterize and dissect the ovarian vessels, a window was opened between the left ovarian pedicle above and the ureter below. The vesico-uterine and vesico-vaginal peritoneum was dissected starting from the lateral to the medial. These surgical steps allow an excellent skeletonization of the uterine vessels, medially to the ureter along the uterus, which can be easily cauterizated and sectioned. The vagina was incised circumferentially following the porcelain-valve of the uterine manipulator as a guide. The uterus and the adnexa were extracted through the vagina. The vaginal vault was closed with a running suture. A hydro-pneumatic test for bladder integrity at the end of surgery was always performed.
LESS hysterectomy was performed through a multi-channel single trocar (TriPort, Olympus Winter \& Ibe GmbH, Hamburg - Germany) inserted in the umbilicus using an open technique (1.5-2 cm cutaneous incision), as previously reported (7). Intra-abdominal visualization was obtained with a 0° 5-mm telescope with a flexible tip (EndoEYE, Olympus Winter \& Ibe GmbH, Hamburg - Germany). Working straight 5-mm instruments were inserted into the remaining 2 ports, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation bipolar coagulator and a multifunctional versatile laparoscopic device, which grasps, coagulates and transects simultaneously (PKS cutting forceps, 43 cm, Gyrus ACMI, Hamburg, Germany). In order to prevent clashing between instruments and surgeon's hands and to facilitate surgical manoeuvres, the combination of one 33 cm-long instrument with a 43 cm-long instrument was adopted. The umbilical fascia was closed with a figure-of-eight 0-Vicryl.
M-LPS hysterectomy was performed through one optical trans-umbilical 5 mm trocar (Endopath Xcel 5mm optiview, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH) and three 3 mm sovra-pubic ancillary ports (Karl Storz Endoskope - 3 mm trocar set, Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany). A 5 mm 0° endoscope (EndoEYE, Olympus Winter \& Ibe GmbH, Hamburg - Germany) and 3 mm laparoscopic instruments (Karl Storz Endoskope - 3 mm Instrument Set, Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) were utilized, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation and bipolar coagulator (PK 3mm, Gyrus ACMI, Hamburg - Germany). The present study is the first randomised one that directly compared M-LPS and LESS for total hysterectomy. We can argue that comparing two minimally invasive surgeries, variations are minimal and only a careful analysis can identify them. In our trial, we showed that there were no significant differences between the two techniques in terms of peri-operative outcomes except for OT that was longer in LESS with respect to M-LPS.As far as early post-operative pain is concerned, we found that patients undergoing M-LPS experienced significantly less pain with respect to those managed by LESS.
- Conditions
- Pain, Postoperative
- Being tested
- micro-laparoscopy, Laparoendoscopic single site surgery
- Keywords
- hysterectomy, single-port, micro-laparoscopy
- Medical subject headings
- Pain, Postoperative
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
micro-laparoscopyProcedure or surgery
M-LPS hysterectomy was performed through one optical trans-umbilical 5 mm trocar and three 3 mm sovra-pubic ancillary ports. A 5 mm 0° endoscope and 3 mm laparoscopic instruments were utilized, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation and bipolar coagulator.
Laparoendoscopic single site surgeryProcedure or surgery
LESS hysterectomy was performed through a multi-channel single trocar inserted in the umbilicus using an open technique (1.5-2 cm cutaneous incision), as previously reported. Intra-abdominal visualization was obtained with a 0° 5-mm telescope with a flexible tip. Working straight 5-mm instruments were inserted into the remaining 2 ports, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation bipolar coagulator and a multifunctional versatile laparoscopic device, which grasps, coagulates and transects simultaneously. In order to prevent clashing between instruments and surgeon's hands and to facilitate surgical manoeuvres, the combination of one 33 cm-long instrument with a 43 cm-long instrument was adopted. The umbilical fascia was closed with a figure-of-eight 0-Vicryl.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| micro-laparoscopy | Active comparator | M-LPS hysterectomy was performed through one optical trans-umbilical 5 mm trocar and three 3 mm sovra-pubic ancillary ports. A 5 mm 0° endoscope and 3 mm laparoscopic instruments were utilized, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation and bipolar coagulator. Receives: Procedure: micro-laparoscopy |
| laparoendoscopic single site surgery | Active comparator | LESS hysterectomy was performed through a multi-channel single trocar inserted in the umbilicus using an open technique (1.5-2 cm cutaneous incision), as previously reported. Intra-abdominal visualization was obtained with a 0° 5-mm telescope with a flexible tip.Working straight 5-mm instruments were inserted into the remaining 2 ports, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation bipolar coagulator and a multifunctional versatile laparoscopic device, which grasps, coagulates and transects simultaneously. In order to prevent clashing between instruments and surgeon's hands and to facilitate surgical manoeuvres, the combination of one 33 cm-long instrument with a 43 cm-long instrument was adopted. The umbilical fascia was closed with a figure-of-eight 0-Vicryl. Receives: Procedure: Laparoendoscopic single site surgery |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Post-operative pain
Measured: within 8 hours after surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Aug 2012 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2011
- Primary completionFeb 2012
- Study completionMay 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Pain, PostoperativeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 71 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Prof. Giovanni Scambia, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
- Investigators
- Francesco Fanfani, MD, Principal investigator, Catholic University of the Sacred HeartAnna Fagotti, PhD, Principal investigator, Catholic University of the Sacred HeartMaria L Gagliardi, MD, Principal investigator, Catholic University of the Sacred HeartGiorgia Monterossi, MD, Principal investigator, Catholic University of the Sacred HeartCristiano Rossitto, MD, Principal investigator, Catholic University of the Sacred HeartBarbara Costantini, MD, Principal investigator, Catholic University of the Sacred HeartSalvatore Gueli Alletti, MD, Principal investigator, Catholic University of the Sacred HeartGiovanni Scambia, MD, Principal investigator, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01666483
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- P/473/CE/2011
- Acronym
- MLPS/LESS
- Status last verified
- Aug 2012
- First submitted
- 11 May 2012
- Last updated
- 16 Aug 2012
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Aug 2012. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Micro-laparoscopic Versus Single-port Total Hysterectomy: a Randomized Trial.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01666483
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MLPS/LESS / P/473/CE/2011
- Conditions
- Pain, Postoperative
- Keywords
- hysterectomy, single-port, micro-laparoscopy
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 71 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Catholic University of the Sacred HeartUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2011
- Primary completion
- Feb 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- May 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Aug 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
A total of 86 patients underwent total hysterectomy. Three of them refused randomization, 34 were randomly assigned to undergo to laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and 34 to undergo micro-laparoscopy (M-LPS).Laparoscopic hysterectomy can be safely performed by M-LPS and LESS.
Detailed description
Between May 2011 and February 2012 a prospective randomized study was carried out at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome-Italy.
Consenting patients scheduled to be submitted to a total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign, pre-malignant and malignant disease were evaluated for this study. Inclusion criteria for total laparoscopic hysterectomy were: appropriate medical status for laparoscopic surgery; uterine size < 12 weeks of pregnancy; no previous longitudinal major abdominal surgery. Patients who had a pelvic organ prolapse greater than grade I, were excluded from this study.
Pre-operative work-up included gynecologic examination, trans-vaginal ultrasound. In case of early endometrial and cervical cancer a staging MRI or CT was performed.
Our institutional review board approved the study (Protocol number P/473/CE/2011), and all women gave their informed consent to use their data. All patients were adequately informed concerning the possible risks and benefits of the described technique and signed a written consent agreeing to undergo the procedure and to eventual conversion to LPS or laparotomy, if necessary.
Patients were randomly assigned to either a hysterectomy with LESS or with M-LPS. The surgeon was notified of the allocation in theater on the morning of the procedure. The same surgical team performed both techniques. Assignment to one of the two surgical approaches was on 1:1, using a block randomized computer-generated list.
The operative time (OT) was defined as the interval between start incisions to closure. The intra-operative complications was defined as bowel, bladder, ureteral, or vascular injuries, and the estimated blood loss (EBL) ≥ 500 ml. Anemia was considered when hemoglobin level was ≤ 8 g/dl and fever when body temperature was at least 38C° in two consecutive measurements at least 6 hours apart, excluding the first day after surgery.
Post-operative pain assessment (in the immediate post-operative period) was performed in all patients using a validated Visual Analog Pain Scale (VAS) and scored from 0 to 10 (0 = no pain and 10 = agonizing pain). Post-operative pain was subjectively reported considering the patient at rest at 20 minutes and 2-4-8 hours after surgery. All patients were managed with the same intra-operative anesthetic protocol and post-operative analgesic drug (Paracetamol 1,000 mg) was administered only on patient's demand.
LPS conversion was defined as single or multiple 5 mm port insertion. The perioperative complications were defined as those occurring within the first month following the procedure.
Surgical Technique The operative technique is the same in the two groups with the exception of videoloparoscope, port type and some specific instruments. Once achieved pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg), a careful inspection of the entire abdominal cavity was performed as first surgical step. All surgical procedures were performed with an intrauterine manipulator. After coagulation and section of round ligament to enter into the retroperitoneal space, the ureter was visualized and a haemostatic clip was positioned at the origin of the uterine artery. In order to safely cauterize and dissect the ovarian vessels, a window was opened between the left ovarian pedicle above and the ureter below. The vesico-uterine and vesico-vaginal peritoneum was dissected starting from the lateral to the medial. These surgical steps allow an excellent skeletonization of the uterine vessels, medially to the ureter along the uterus, which can be easily cauterizated and sectioned. The vagina was incised circumferentially following the porcelain-valve of the uterine manipulator as a guide. The uterus and the adnexa were extracted through the vagina. The vaginal vault was closed with a running suture. A hydro-pneumatic test for bladder integrity at the end of surgery was always performed.
LESS hysterectomy was performed through a multi-channel single trocar (TriPort, Olympus Winter \& Ibe GmbH, Hamburg - Germany) inserted in the umbilicus using an open technique (1.5-2 cm cutaneous incision), as previously reported (7). Intra-abdominal visualization was obtained with a 0° 5-mm telescope with a flexible tip (EndoEYE, Olympus Winter \& Ibe GmbH, Hamburg - Germany). Working straight 5-mm instruments were inserted into the remaining 2 ports, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation bipolar coagulator and a multifunctional versatile laparoscopic device, which grasps, coagulates and transects simultaneously (PKS cutting forceps, 43 cm, Gyrus ACMI, Hamburg, Germany). In order to prevent clashing between instruments and surgeon's hands and to facilitate surgical manoeuvres, the combination of one 33 cm-long instrument with a 43 cm-long instrument was adopted. The umbilical fascia was closed with a figure-of-eight 0-Vicryl.
M-LPS hysterectomy was performed through one optical trans-umbilical 5 mm trocar (Endopath Xcel 5mm optiview, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH) and three 3 mm sovra-pubic ancillary ports (Karl Storz Endoskope - 3 mm trocar set, Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany). A 5 mm 0° endoscope (EndoEYE, Olympus Winter \& Ibe GmbH, Hamburg - Germany) and 3 mm laparoscopic instruments (Karl Storz Endoskope - 3 mm Instrument Set, Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) were utilized, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation and bipolar coagulator (PK 3mm, Gyrus ACMI, Hamburg - Germany). The present study is the first randomised one that directly compared M-LPS and LESS for total hysterectomy. We can argue that comparing two minimally invasive surgeries, variations are minimal and only a careful analysis can identify them. In our trial, we showed that there were no significant differences between the two techniques in terms of peri-operative outcomes except for OT that was longer in LESS with respect to M-LPS.As far as early post-operative pain is concerned, we found that patients undergoing M-LPS experienced significantly less pain with respect to those managed by LESS.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| micro-laparoscopy | Active comparator | Procedure: micro-laparoscopyM-LPS hysterectomy was performed through one optical trans-umbilical 5 mm trocar and three 3 mm sovra-pubic ancillary ports. A 5 mm 0° endoscope and 3 mm laparoscopic instruments were utilized, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation and bipolar coagulator. |
| laparoendoscopic single site surgery | Active comparator | Procedure: Laparoendoscopic single site surgeryLESS hysterectomy was performed through a multi-channel single trocar inserted in the umbilicus using an open technique (1.5-2 cm cutaneous incision), as previously reported. Intra-abdominal visualization was obtained with a 0° 5-mm telescope with a flexible tip.Working straight 5-mm instruments were inserted into the remaining 2 ports, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation bipolar coagulator and a multifunctional versatile laparoscopic device, which grasps, coagulates and transects simultaneously. In order to prevent clashing between instruments and surgeon's hands and to facilitate surgical manoeuvres, the combination of one 33 cm-long instrument with a 43 cm-long instrument was adopted. The umbilical fascia was closed with a figure-of-eight 0-Vicryl. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 75 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- appropriate medical status for laparoscopic surgery;
- uterine size < 12 weeks of pregnancy;
- no previous longitudinal major abdominal surgery.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- pelvic organ prolapse greater than grade I
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| micro-laparoscopyM-LPS hysterectomy was performed through one optical trans-umbilical 5 mm trocar and three 3 mm sovra-pubic ancillary ports. A 5 mm 0° endoscope and 3 mm laparoscopic instruments were utilized, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation and bipolar coagulator. | Procedure or surgery | micro-laparoscopy |
| Laparoendoscopic single site surgeryLESS hysterectomy was performed through a multi-channel single trocar inserted in the umbilicus using an open technique (1.5-2 cm cutaneous incision), as previously reported. Intra-abdominal visualization was obtained with a 0° 5-mm telescope with a flexible tip. Working straight 5-mm instruments were inserted into the remaining 2 ports, choosing among graspers, cold scissors, suction/irrigation bipolar coagulator and a multifunctional versatile laparoscopic device, which grasps, coagulates and transects simultaneously. In order to prevent clashing between instruments and surgeon's hands and to facilitate surgical manoeuvres, the combination of one 33 cm-long instrument with a 43 cm-long instrument was adopted. The umbilical fascia was closed with a figure-of-eight 0-Vicryl. | Procedure or surgery | laparoendoscopic single site surgery |
Primary outcome
Post-operative pain
Time frame: within 8 hours after surgery
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Aug 2012.
Related trials for Pain, Postoperative
Recruiting
US Guided EOI Block Versus ESPB for Postoperative Analgesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Postoperative Pain
Active, not recruitingObservational study
The Effect of Single Lung Ventilation Duration and Intraoperative Brain Oxygenation on Cognitive Function and Postoperative Pain in Geriatric Patients
Thoracic Anesthesia, Geriatric Anesthesia
Recruiting
Tramadol Versus Morphine for Postoperative Pain Relief Following Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery
Multimodal Analgesia, Tramadol
Recruiting
TEAS Timing for Gastrectomy Recovery (TEAS-TIME Trial)
Gastric Cancer (GC), Stomach Neoplasms
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Return to Physical Activity After Retropublic Transvaginal Sling and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy
Stress Urinary Incontinence, Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Francesco Fanfani, MD principal investigator
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
Anna Fagotti, PhD principal investigator
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
Maria L Gagliardi, MD principal investigator
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing micro-laparoscopy and Laparoendoscopic single site surgery in people with Pain, Postoperative, run by Catholic University of the Sacred Heart at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Aug 2012. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Post-operative pain (time frame: within 8 hours after surgery). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Aug 2012.