Localized Prostate CancerNCT01714219
Effect of New Posterior Reconstruction Method on Recovery of Continence After Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy
A study testing Posterior reconstruction in people with Localized Prostate Cancer and Urinary Incontinence, run by Seoul National University Hospital at 1 site in South Korea.
Trial summary
Incontinence is one of the most common complications of radical prostatectomy. The continence rate is not significantly improved even by robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age, men only
- Conditions the study is for
- Localized Prostate Cancer, Urinary Incontinence
- What is being tested?
- Posterior reconstruction
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSouth Korea
- Study dates
- Oct 2012to Mar 2014
- 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 Any age
- Men only
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- pathologically proven localized prostate cancer (≤cT3a)
- patients to undergo robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy by a single surgeon (Sang Eun Lee)
Who cannot join
- prior hormone therapy
- prior radiation treatment on prostate or pelvis
- preoperative urinary incontinence
- refused to participate
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
South Korea1 site
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do
About this study
Official title: Effect of New Posterior Reconstruction Method on Recovery of Continence After Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: Prospective, Single-blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial
Incontinence is one of the most common complications of radical prostatectomy. The continence rate is not significantly improved even by robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). However, some reports suggested that posterior reconstruction (PR) behind vesicourethral anastomosis could improve early recovery of continence during open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
But, recent prospective studies reported no benefit of PR after RALP, which was the opposite result of those of previous studies. However the PR techniques used in these prospective studies seem to be quite different from the previous techniques. They seem to have used single-step PR, which opposes the median dorsal fibrous raphe (MDFR) only to the Denonvilliers' fascia (DF). By contrast, the original technique incorporated additional reconstruction between the MDFR and the posterior bladder wall 1-2 cm from the new bladder neck.
Read more
Our group identified this anatomic structure as the posterior counterpart of the detrusor apron (PDA). The PDA is a strong, thick functional tissue containing muscle that is more appropriate for pulling and fixing the MDFR than the DF. As such, we hypothesized that the key proximal structure for PR is not DF, but rather PDA. Furthermore, single-step reconstruction between MDFR and PDA could be enough for PR. We previously investigated whether our new PR technique, which entails opposition of the MDFR solely to the PDA, would improve continence recovery compared with the standard RALP technique without PR. And our retrospective study demonstrated that this new PR technique during RALP significantly shortens the time to the recovery of continence compared with the standard technique, which does not incorporate PR (Int J Urol, 2012;19:683-7).
Thus, we plan to validate this result by a well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled study.
- Conditions
- Localized Prostate Cancer, Urinary Incontinence
- Being tested
- Posterior reconstruction
- Keywords
- prostatic neoplasms, prostatectomy, robotics, urinary incontinence
- Medical subject headings
- Urinary Incontinence, Prostatic Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Posterior reconstructionProcedure or surgery
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Posterior reconstruction | Experimental | * New posterior reconstruction, which entails opposition of the median dorsal fibrous raphe solely to the posterior counterpart of the detrusor apron
* Vesicourethral anastomosis using the van Velthoven method
* Anterior reconstruction, which involved opposing the anterior detrusor apron to the remaining puboprostatic ligaments and dorsal vascular complex Receives: Procedure: Posterior reconstruction |
| No posterior reconstruction | No intervention | * No posterior reconstruction * Vesicourethral anastomosis using the van Velthoven method * Anterior reconstruction, which involved opposing the anterior detrusor apron to the remaining puboprostatic ligaments and dorsal vascular complex |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Complete recovery of urinary continence
Duration of complete continence recovery defined as no pad use measured by question 5 of EPIC questionnaire.
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (7)
Duration of social continence recovery
Defined as 0 or 1 measured by EPIC question 5.
Measured: 6 months
Continence score at 3 months
By EPIC question 5.
- 0 vs. 1-3
- mean value
Measured: 3 months
Urinary leak at 3 months
By EPIC question 1,
- 1-3 vs. 4-5
- mean value
Measured: 3 months
Self perception (QoL) of urinary function at 3 months
By EPIC question 7,
- 0-1 vs. 2-4
- mean value
Measured: 3 months
Total operative time
- Total operative time
- Console time
Measured: At the day of surgery
Estimated blood loss
Measured: At the day of surgery
Complication
Complication by modified Clavien-Dindo grade
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Oct 2012 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2012
- Primary completionMar 2014
- Study completionMar 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Localized Prostate CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Seoul National University HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Seoul National University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Sang Eun Lee, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
- Investigators
- Sang Eun Lee, M.D., Ph.D., Principal investigator, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01714219
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SNUBH-URO-2012-02
- Status last verified
- Sep 2014
- First submitted
- 19 Oct 2012
- Last updated
- 29 Sep 2014
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Sep 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effect of New Posterior Reconstruction Method on Recovery of Continence After Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: Prospective, Single-blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01714219
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SNUBH-URO-2012-02
- Conditions
- Localized Prostate Cancer, Urinary Incontinence
- Keywords
- prostatic neoplasms, prostatectomy, robotics, urinary incontinence
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Seoul National University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
- Study start
- Oct 2012
- Primary completion
- Mar 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Oct 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.
Incontinence is one of the most common complications of radical prostatectomy. The continence rate is not significantly improved even by robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). However, some reports suggested that posterior reconstruction (PR) behind vesicourethral anastomosis could improve early recovery of continence during open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
But, recent prospective studies reported no benefit of PR after RALP, which was the opposite result of those of previous studies. However the PR techniques used in these prospective studies seem to be quite different from the previous techniques. They seem to have used single-step PR, which opposes the median dorsal fibrous raphe (MDFR) only to the Denonvilliers' fascia (DF). By contrast, the original technique incorporated additional reconstruction between the MDFR and the posterior bladder wall 1-2 cm from the new bladder neck.
Our group identified this anatomic structure as the posterior counterpart of the detrusor apron (PDA). The PDA is a strong, thick functional tissue containing muscle that is more appropriate for pulling and fixing the MDFR than the DF. As such, we hypothesized that the key proximal structure for PR is not DF, but rather PDA. Furthermore, single-step reconstruction between MDFR and PDA could be enough for PR. We previously investigated whether our new PR technique, which entails opposition of the MDFR solely to the PDA, would improve continence recovery compared with the standard RALP technique without PR. And our retrospective study demonstrated that this new PR technique during RALP significantly shortens the time to the recovery of continence compared with the standard technique, which does not incorporate PR (Int J Urol, 2012;19:683-7).
Thus, we plan to validate this result by a well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled study.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Posterior reconstruction | Experimental | Procedure: Posterior reconstruction* New posterior reconstruction, which entails opposition of the median dorsal fibrous raphe solely to the posterior counterpart of the detrusor apron * Vesicourethral anastomosis using the van Velthoven method * Anterior reconstruction, which involved opposing the anterior detrusor apron to the remaining puboprostatic ligaments and dorsal vascular complex |
| No posterior reconstruction | No intervention | –* No posterior reconstruction * Vesicourethral anastomosis using the van Velthoven method * Anterior reconstruction, which involved opposing the anterior detrusor apron to the remaining puboprostatic ligaments and dorsal vascular complex |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- pathologically proven localized prostate cancer (≤cT3a)
- patients to undergo robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy by a single surgeon (Sang Eun Lee)
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- prior hormone therapy
- prior radiation treatment on prostate or pelvis
- preoperative urinary incontinence
- refused to participate
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Posterior reconstruction | Procedure or surgery | Posterior reconstruction |
Primary outcome
Complete recovery of urinary continence
Time frame: 6 months
Duration of complete continence recovery defined as no pad use measured by question 5 of EPIC questionnaire.
7 secondary outcomes
Duration of social continence recovery
Time frame: 6 months
Continence score at 3 months
Time frame: 3 months
Urinary leak at 3 months
Time frame: 3 months
Self perception (QoL) of urinary function at 3 months
Time frame: 3 months
Total operative time
Time frame: At the day of surgery
Estimated blood loss
Time frame: At the day of surgery
Complication
Time frame: 6 months
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 29 Sep 2014.
Related trials for Localized Prostate Cancer
RecruitingPhase 2
Multitargeted Recombinant Ad5 PSA/MUC-1/Brachyury-Based Immunotherapy (TriAdeno) Vaccine With IL-15 Superagonist N-803 in Participants With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Undergoing Active Surveillance
Adenocarcinoma, Prostate Cancer
Recruiting
WATER IV PCa (AS Sub-study)
Localized Prostate Cancer
Recruiting
A Multi-centre Trial on Targeted Microwave Ablation (TMA) for Localized Prostate Cancer: The VIOLETTA Trial
Prostate Cancer
Active, not recruitingPhase 1
Hypofractionated Accelerated Pelvic Nodal Radiotherapy (GCC 2048)
Prostate Cancer, Prostate Adenocarcinoma
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Analysis of the Performance of PSMA Emission Tomography in Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With HIFU
Prostate Cancer - Recurrent, Prostate Cancer (Diagnosis)
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.
Sang Eun Lee, M.D., Ph.D. principal investigator
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Posterior reconstruction in people with Localized Prostate Cancer and Urinary Incontinence, run by Seoul National University Hospital at 1 site in South Korea.
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 2 inclusion and 4 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 29 Sep 2014. 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 South Korea. 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?
Complete recovery of urinary continence (time frame: 6 months). 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 29 Sep 2014.