AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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.

Italy1 site
  • Francesco Fanfani

    Rome, Rome, 00168

Other trials in Italy

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.

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 groups in NCT01666483
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
micro-laparoscopyActive comparatorM-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 surgeryActive comparatorLESS 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.

  1. 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.

  1. First posted16 Aug 2012 (estimated)
  2. Study startMay 2011
  3. Primary completionFeb 2012
  4. Study completionMay 2012

Resources

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)
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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in