Vaginal Vault ProlapseNCT02290288
Prospective Study for Vaginal Vault Prolapse After Hysterectomy: Comparison of Two Surgical Methods
A study testing vaginal surgery and laparoscopic surgery in people with Vaginal Vault Prolapse, run by Sahlgrenska University Hospital at 1 site in Sweden.
Trial summary
The study is carried out at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the patient population consists of women referred with symptomatic and bothersome post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse at least 1 cm above or beyond the hymeneal remnants. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 40 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Vaginal Vault Prolapse
- What is being tested?
- vaginal surgery and laparoscopic surgery
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 138 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSweden
- Study dates
- Oct 2005to May 2015
- 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 40 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- post-hysterectomy patients with at least two-compartment prolapse (with affected apical/vault compartment,
- stage II or higher on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q)),
- suffering from symptoms of prolapse,
- requesting pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, and
- diagnosed with a vault prolapse.
Who cannot join
- patients with prolapse and uterus in place,
- those not requesting pelvic floor surgery,
- patients who do not understand Swedish or are not capable to fulfill follow up procedure
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Sweden1 site
Dept of Obst Gyn, Sahlgrenska University Hospital
Gothenburg, VGR, 41381
About this study
Official title: Prospective Randomized Study for Vaginal Vault Prolapse After Hysterectomy: Comparison of a Vaginal and Laparoscopic Method With Validation of Translated Questionnaire for Symptoms and Quality of Life by Vaginal Prolapse.
The study is carried out at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the patient population consists of women referred with symptomatic and bothersome post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse at least 1 cm above or beyond the hymeneal remnants. The interventions are either vaginal sacrospinousfixation or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy following randomization to one of the types of surgery. The primary outcome is anatomical failure based on clinical assessment. Failure is defined clinically, according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system, as Ba, C or Bp at the hymen or below on maximum Valsalva maneuver one and two years after the surgery. Secondary outcomes are evaluation of continence, sexual function and prolapse symptoms based on validated questionnaires 1, 2, 5 and 10 years after the surgery.
Read the detailed description
The lifetime risk for pelvic floor surgery for prolapse is likely to be between 10% and 15%, and a large number of patients who previously underwent hysterectomy develop vaginal vault prolapse. There is some evidence that about 2% of all women after hysterectomy would require a surgery for vault prolapse. There are many different techniques used for correction of vault prolapse but the evidence for them is lacking and the use is guided mainly by tradition at the singe institution.
There is some evidence indicating that laparoscopic surgery can be superior to the vaginal approach. Symptoms of prolapse are significantly associated with avulsion injury in patients after hysterectomy.
Our aim is to compare, with a 1- and 2-years follow-up examination in patients with post-hysterectomy prolapse, the efficacy of two standard surgical procedures for vaginal vault prolapse: sacrospinous vaginal colpopexy (the Richter procedure) with native tissue vaginal repair (sacrospinous fixation, SSF) and laparoscopic colposacropexy with mesh.
This is a single-center, randomized controlled trial of two standard surgical procedures for vaginal vault prolapse routinely used at our institution.Both procedures are designed to treat vault prolapse, one with mesh implantation through laparoscopy and the other with vaginal repairs and apical fixation to the sacrospinous ligament, usually on the right.
All patients referred to our gynecological unit (Ob/Gyn Department of Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg) because of symptomatic vault prolapse and fulfilling the inclusions criteria are asked to participate in the study. Eligible for inclusion are: post-hysterectomy patients with at least two-compartment prolapse (with affected apical/vault compartment, stage II or higher on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q)), suffering from symptoms of prolapse, requesting pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, and diagnosed with a vault prolapse. Excluded are: patients with prolapse and uterus in place, those not requesting pelvic floor surgery, patients who do not understand Swedish or are not capable to fulfill follow up procedure.
Patients undergo identical pre- and postoperative assessment procedures, including POP-Q examination on maximum Valsalva maneuver, which are archived on Case Report Form, and validated questionnaires PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12. The study was approved by the regional ethics committee and all subjects obtain written informed consent to participate. To minimize the bias we decided that all the follow up examinations are going to be performed by the same gynecologist who do not perform the surgery.
All patients can end participation in the study at any moment.
The randomization process is carried out by computer, using patient social security number, at the time of enrollment (usually 2-3 months before the surgery). Patients are informed about their allocation after the randomization. Both procedures are performed by an experienced surgeon, with the patient under general anesthesia for the laparoscopic procedure and regional anesthesia for the sacrospinous fixation.
Patients are followed up at 3 months,1 year and 2 years postoperatively. These postoperative clinical examinations are performed by a single examiner, who had not been involved in the surgical procedures. The vaginal descent was assessed at maximum Valsalva maneuver.
In case of recurrence of prolapse and distressing symptoms which a patient desired to be resolved, a reoperation of prolapse is planned according to the clinical praxis at our department.
The primary outcome measure was anatomical failure based on clinical assessment. Failure was defined clinically as Ba, C or Bp at the hymen or below, on maximum Valsalva maneuver.
As secondary outcome measures we used a continence status, sexual function and prolapse symptoms based on validated questionnaires: Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ - 7), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire - Short Form 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) and quality of life based on Short Form (36) Health Survey.
The power calculation was based on the primary outcome measure and available data which led us to expect a failure rate of 25% in the sacrospinous fixation group and 10% failure in laparoscopy group. To detect an expected difference of 15% between the groups, with 80% power of the test 70 patients are required in each group.
- Conditions
- Vaginal Vault Prolapse
- Being tested
- vaginal surgery, laparoscopic surgery
- Medical subject headings
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
vaginal surgeryProcedure or surgery
laparoscopic surgeryProcedure or surgery
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| SSF | Active comparator | 1. vaginal surgery arm (SSF) Receives: Procedure: vaginal surgery |
| LSC | Active comparator | laparoscopic surgery arm (LSC) Receives: Procedure: laparoscopic surgery |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
anatomical failure (Failure was defined clinically as Ba, C or Bp at the hymen or below, on maximum Valsalva maneuver.)
The primary outcome measure was anatomical failure based on clinical assessment. Failure was defined clinically as Ba, C or Bp at the hymen or below, on maximum Valsalva maneuver.
Measured: 1 year
Secondary outcomes (4)
continence status
continence status based on validated questionnaires: Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ - 7), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire - Short Form 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)
Measured: 1 and 5 years
sexual function
sexual function based on validated questionnaires: Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ - 7), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire - Short Form 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)
Measured: 1 and 5 years
prolapse symptoms
symptoms based on validated questionnaires: Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ - 7), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire - Short Form 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12
Measured: 1 and 5 years
quality of life
quality of life based on validated questionnaires: Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ - 7), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire - Short Form 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) and quality of life based on Short Form (36) Health Survey.
Measured: 1 and 5 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Nov 2014 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2005
- Primary completionMay 2015
- Study completionMay 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Vaginal Vault ProlapseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Sahlgrenska 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
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 138 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Sahlgrenska University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Janusz Marcickiewicz, Sahlgrenska University Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02290288
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- VGFOUREG-28601
- Status last verified
- May 2015
- First submitted
- 4 Nov 2014
- Last updated
- 19 May 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 May 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Prospective Randomized Study for Vaginal Vault Prolapse After Hysterectomy: Comparison of a Vaginal and Laparoscopic Method With Validation of Translated Questionnaire for Symptoms and Quality of Life by Vaginal Prolapse.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02290288
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- VGFOUREG-28601
- Conditions
- Vaginal Vault Prolapse
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 138 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Sahlgrenska University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Oct 2005
- Primary completion
- May 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- May 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 14 Nov 2014 (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.
The study is carried out at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the patient population consists of women referred with symptomatic and bothersome post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse at least 1 cm above or beyond the hymeneal remnants. The interventions are either vaginal sacrospinousfixation or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy following randomization to one of the types of surgery. The primary outcome is anatomical failure based on clinical assessment. Failure is defined clinically, according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system, as Ba, C or Bp at the hymen or below on maximum Valsalva maneuver one and two years after the surgery. Secondary outcomes are evaluation of continence, sexual function and prolapse symptoms based on validated questionnaires 1, 2, 5 and 10 years after the surgery.
Detailed description
The lifetime risk for pelvic floor surgery for prolapse is likely to be between 10% and 15%, and a large number of patients who previously underwent hysterectomy develop vaginal vault prolapse. There is some evidence that about 2% of all women after hysterectomy would require a surgery for vault prolapse. There are many different techniques used for correction of vault prolapse but the evidence for them is lacking and the use is guided mainly by tradition at the singe institution.
There is some evidence indicating that laparoscopic surgery can be superior to the vaginal approach. Symptoms of prolapse are significantly associated with avulsion injury in patients after hysterectomy.
Our aim is to compare, with a 1- and 2-years follow-up examination in patients with post-hysterectomy prolapse, the efficacy of two standard surgical procedures for vaginal vault prolapse: sacrospinous vaginal colpopexy (the Richter procedure) with native tissue vaginal repair (sacrospinous fixation, SSF) and laparoscopic colposacropexy with mesh.
This is a single-center, randomized controlled trial of two standard surgical procedures for vaginal vault prolapse routinely used at our institution.Both procedures are designed to treat vault prolapse, one with mesh implantation through laparoscopy and the other with vaginal repairs and apical fixation to the sacrospinous ligament, usually on the right.
All patients referred to our gynecological unit (Ob/Gyn Department of Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg) because of symptomatic vault prolapse and fulfilling the inclusions criteria are asked to participate in the study. Eligible for inclusion are: post-hysterectomy patients with at least two-compartment prolapse (with affected apical/vault compartment, stage II or higher on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q)), suffering from symptoms of prolapse, requesting pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, and diagnosed with a vault prolapse. Excluded are: patients with prolapse and uterus in place, those not requesting pelvic floor surgery, patients who do not understand Swedish or are not capable to fulfill follow up procedure.
Patients undergo identical pre- and postoperative assessment procedures, including POP-Q examination on maximum Valsalva maneuver, which are archived on Case Report Form, and validated questionnaires PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12. The study was approved by the regional ethics committee and all subjects obtain written informed consent to participate. To minimize the bias we decided that all the follow up examinations are going to be performed by the same gynecologist who do not perform the surgery.
All patients can end participation in the study at any moment.
The randomization process is carried out by computer, using patient social security number, at the time of enrollment (usually 2-3 months before the surgery). Patients are informed about their allocation after the randomization. Both procedures are performed by an experienced surgeon, with the patient under general anesthesia for the laparoscopic procedure and regional anesthesia for the sacrospinous fixation.
Patients are followed up at 3 months,1 year and 2 years postoperatively. These postoperative clinical examinations are performed by a single examiner, who had not been involved in the surgical procedures. The vaginal descent was assessed at maximum Valsalva maneuver.
In case of recurrence of prolapse and distressing symptoms which a patient desired to be resolved, a reoperation of prolapse is planned according to the clinical praxis at our department.
The primary outcome measure was anatomical failure based on clinical assessment. Failure was defined clinically as Ba, C or Bp at the hymen or below, on maximum Valsalva maneuver.
As secondary outcome measures we used a continence status, sexual function and prolapse symptoms based on validated questionnaires: Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ - 7), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire - Short Form 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) and quality of life based on Short Form (36) Health Survey.
The power calculation was based on the primary outcome measure and available data which led us to expect a failure rate of 25% in the sacrospinous fixation group and 10% failure in laparoscopy group. To detect an expected difference of 15% between the groups, with 80% power of the test 70 patients are required in each group.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| SSF | Active comparator | Procedure: vaginal surgery1. vaginal surgery arm (SSF) |
| LSC | Active comparator | Procedure: laparoscopic surgerylaparoscopic surgery arm (LSC) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 40 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- post-hysterectomy patients with at least two-compartment prolapse (with affected apical/vault compartment,
- stage II or higher on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q)),
- suffering from symptoms of prolapse,
- requesting pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, and
- diagnosed with a vault prolapse.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- patients with prolapse and uterus in place,
- those not requesting pelvic floor surgery,
- patients who do not understand Swedish or are not capable to fulfill follow up procedure
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 |
|---|---|---|
| vaginal surgery | Procedure or surgery | SSF |
| laparoscopic surgery | Procedure or surgery | LSC |
Primary outcome
anatomical failure (Failure was defined clinically as Ba, C or Bp at the hymen or below, on maximum Valsalva maneuver.)
Time frame: 1 year
The primary outcome measure was anatomical failure based on clinical assessment. Failure was defined clinically as Ba, C or Bp at the hymen or below, on maximum Valsalva maneuver.
4 secondary outcomes
continence status
Time frame: 1 and 5 years
sexual function
Time frame: 1 and 5 years
prolapse symptoms
Time frame: 1 and 5 years
quality of life
Time frame: 1 and 5 years
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 19 May 2015.
Related trials for Vaginal Vault Prolapse
Active, not recruiting
Apical Suspension Repair for Vault Prolapse In a Three-Arm Randomized Trial Design
Visceral Prolapse
Recruiting
Vaginal Vault Native Tissue Suspension
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Recruiting
Vaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Robotic-assisted Abdominal Mesh Surgery in the Treatment of Apical Prolapse - Prospective Randomized Non-inferiority Study
Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), Pelvic Organ Prolapse Vaginal Surgery
Recruiting
Transvaginal Mesh vs. Laparoscopic Colposacropexy- Study
Prolapse, Vaginal Vault
Recruiting
Post-Hysterectomy Vaginal Length: Horizontal vs. Vertical Closure
Prolapse, Vaginal, Vaginal Vault 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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing vaginal surgery and laparoscopic surgery in people with Vaginal Vault Prolapse, run by Sahlgrenska University Hospital at 1 site in Sweden.
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 5 inclusion and 3 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 19 May 2015. 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 Sweden. 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?
anatomical failure (Failure was defined clinically as Ba, C or Bp at the hymen or below, on maximum Valsalva maneuver.) (time frame: 1 year). 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 19 May 2015.