AzTrials
AzTrials

Pelvic Organ ProlapseSAMENCT03053479

Comparison of the Efficacy of Sacrocolpopexy, the Amreich-Richter Procedure and Transvaginal Mesh

A study testing Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, Transvaginal mesh procedure and Amreich-Richter procedure in people with Pelvic Organ Prolapse, run by Charles University, Czech Republic at 7 sites in 2 countries.

Active, not recruiting

Under way, not looking for participants. Everyone needed has enrolled. The study is still running.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Pelvic organ prolapse, POP, is a common health problem affecting up to 40% of women. Very little is known about the factors associated with surgical failure. Studies have identified a variety of risk factors: younger age, high body mass index and advanced preoperative prolapse (grade III-IV) have been associated with… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older, women only
Conditions the study is for
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
What is being tested?
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, Transvaginal mesh procedure and Amreich-Richter procedure
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
462 participants
Where
7 sitesin 2 countries
Study dates
1 Sep 2016to Mar 2028
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Not yet: the study is under way

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 years and older
  • Women only
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • age over18
  • signed informed consent
  • symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse stage III or higher (according to the International Continence Society Pelvic Organ Prolapse quantification system - POPQ) in anterior and apical (central) compartments, one at least stage II and the second at least stage III
  • presence of at least a unilateral avulsion injury of the puborectalis muscle
  • agreement with postoperative follow-up.

Who cannot join

  • previous pelvic reconstructive surgery with mesh
  • isolated posterior compartment prolapse
  • previous radiotherapy in true pelvis
  • contraindication for one of the planned surgical methods.

Trial locations and contacts

7 sites in 2 countries.

7 sites in 2 countries

Czechia6 sites
  • Frýdek-Místek regional hospital

    Frýdek-Místek, 73801

  • Faculty of Medicine in Olomouc, Palackeho University

    Olomouc

  • Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University

    Pilsen, 30460

  • General University Hospital, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University

    Prague, 12800

  • Hospital Na Bulovce, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University

    Prague, 18000

  • Tomas Bata Regional Hospital in Zlin

    Zlín, 762 75

Other trials in Czechia

Slovakia1 site
  • Louis Pasteur University Hospital Kosice

    Košice, 04011

Other trials in Slovakia

About this study

Official title: Comparison of the Efficacy of Three Surgical Methods in the Treatment of POP: Sacrocolpopexy,the Amreich-Richter Procedure and Transvaginal Mesh

Pelvic organ prolapse, POP, is a common health problem affecting up to 40% of women. Very little is known about the factors associated with surgical failure. Studies have identified a variety of risk factors: younger age, high body mass index and advanced preoperative prolapse (grade III-IV) have been associated with an increased risk of reoperation in some studies. According to some studies patients had poorer anatomical outcome after traditional repairs but were able to enjoy the same quality of life as after transvaginal mesh surgery or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. The purpose of this study is to assess and compare the efficacy of these three procedures in a randomized controlled trial.

Read the detailed description

Pelvic organ prolapse, POP, is a common health problem affecting up to 40% of women. The lifetime likelihood of undergoing at least one incident of pelvic organ prolapse surgery has been estimated at approximately 13%. The prevalence of reoperation after primary pelvic reconstructive surgery is high at around 30%, while some studies report the figure as up to 58%. In the early 1990s the perception of pelvic floor defects and urinary incontinence in women started to change significantly. The diagnostics and management of these defects became an independent uro-gynecological sub-specialization within gynaecology and obstetrics, and it has been included among 4 basic sub-specializations recognized by the European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Surgical treatment is indicated in women with symptomatic POP when conservative management has failed or has been declined. There is no indication for repair of asymptomatic POP as an isolated procedure where surgical correction is of uncertain benefit and adds peri- and post-operative risks. The objective of our treatment should always aim to restore quality of life and comfort. Very little is known about the factors associated with surgical failure. Studies have identified a variety of risk factors: younger age, high body mass index and advanced preoperative prolapse (grade III-IV) have been associated with an increased risk of reoperation in some studies, while other studies did not prove these hypotheses. One factor which significantly influences the result of the pelvic organ surgery is the presence of pelvic floor injury. Injury of the musculus levator ani mainly affects the results of traditional vaginal wall repair, with 60% risk of recurrence. In the last few years, in an attempt to reduce recurrence and improve the outcome of reconstructive surgery in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, surgeons have started to use transvaginally introduced prosthetic material (mesh). This type of surgery significantly increases the efficacy of the procedure (anatomic cure rate over 90%), but its use is associated with a risk of some complications (vaginal erosions and potential consecutive infections, granulomas, dyspareunia, vesico-vaginal fistulas, chronic pain) thereby potentially reducing patient quality of life and leading to additional surgery. If the mesh is introduced during sacrocolpopexy and the vaginal wall is not open, there is a significant decrease of mesh-related complications. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is considered the gold standard for the management of apical prolapse with high long-term efficacy. According to some studies patients had poorer anatomical outcome after traditional repairs but were able to enjoy the same quality of life as after transvaginal mesh surgery or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Therefore the investigators plan to assess the efficacy in a randomized trial of three different surgical methods (the Amreich-Richter procedure, transvaginal mesh and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy) in patients with high risk of recurrence; i.e. patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse (at least stage III) and proved injury of pelvic floor muscles.

Aims of the study: To evaluate on the basis of a prospective randomized trial the clinical efficacy of three different surgical procedures (the Amreich-Richter procedure, transvaginal mesh and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy) in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse and proved pelvic floor muscle injury

All patients will undergo complete urogynecological investigation before the procedure (history, clinical examination, assessment of pelvic organ prolapse using the POPQ system, examination of the levator resting tone and contraction (Oxford scale),where appropriate urodynamics according to ICS recommendation and ultrasound examination), and they will fill in standardized international questionnaires (ICIQ-UI SF, PISQ 12, UDI_POPDI-CRADI, POP-SF). Ultrasound examinations will be performed as a combined examination using a convex probe, from abdominal and perineal approaches, and sectoral vaginal probe from the introital approach. Investigation will be preserved mainly in digital form and partly on videotapes. Acquired data from 4D imagery will be preserved in the form of data set and processed with appropriate software. Ultrasound examination will assess standards parameters describing position of the urethrovesical junction, bladder descent, uterus descent, posterior vaginal wall descent (rectocele, enterocele). Using 3D/4D ultrasound examination the status of the pelvic floor will be evaluated (presence of avulsion of puborectalis muscle, abnormal genital hiatus distension). Women will be randomized into three groups: 1. Group - Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy 2. Group - Transvaginal mesh procedure 3. Group - Amreich-Richter procedure (traditional vaginal wall repair with apical fixation to sacrospinous ligament.

All surgical procedures will be performed under general, spinal or epidural anesthesia where indicated, and antibiotic prophylaxis will be used. Surgery will be provided in standardized steps, see arm descriptions.

In an early postoperative check-up 2-3 weeks after surgery evaluation of post-operative pain will be performed and late post-operative complication such as de novo constipation, urinary retention, infections analyzed. The next post-operative complete examination is planned for 3 months after surgery (the same examination as before the procedure including clinical exam, ultrasound the QoL (ICIQ- SF, POP-SF, PISQ 12, UDI_POPDI-CRADI, TS-VAS). The next visits will be provided one year and two years after surgery, and the procedure will be the same as at the 3-month check-up. In addition to pre-operative ultrasound examination the position of the mesh will be monitored. All patients in this study will have a minimum one year follow-up and, whenever possible, a two year follow-up. Postoperative follow-up will be terminated if the result of surgery is evaluated as a failure, and in these cases reoperation will be offered. Further post-operative follow-up up to five years is also planned.

Being tested
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, Transvaginal mesh procedure, Amreich-Richter procedure
Keywords
surgery, native tissue prolapse repair, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, vaginal mesh
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.

  • Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexyProcedure or surgery

    see arm/group descriptions

  • Transvaginal mesh procedureProcedure or surgery

    see arm/group descriptions

  • Amreich-Richter procedureProcedure or surgery

    see arm/group descriptions

Study groups in NCT03053479
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexyExperimentalLaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy will be performed in the following way: Identification of the promontory, dissection of the peritoneum above the promontory and preparation of the ligamentum longitudinale anterior, peritoneum dissection, dissection of the vesicovaginal septum up to the bladder neck, dissection of the rectovaginal septum towards the perineum, application of Y mesh, fixation to the vaginal apex using non-absorbable sutures, and for anterior and posterior vaginal wall absorbable sutures. Fixation of the upper mesh arm to the ligamentum longitudinale anterior using non-absorbable suture, following with complete peritoneum closure above the mesh. The procedure could include salpingo-oophorectomy, supracervical hysterectomy or total hysterectomy (concomitant procedures are not exclusion criteria).
Receives: Procedure: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
Transvaginal mesh procedureExperimentalHydrodissection of the anterior vaginal wall, midline anterior colporrhaphy, preparation beyond the endopelvic fascia, mesh kit with bilateral fixation to sacrospinous ligaments should be used. The procedure could include salpingo-oophorectomy, total hysterectomy and posterior vaginal wall repair (concomitant procedures are not exclusion criteria).
Receives: Procedure: Transvaginal mesh procedure
Amreich-Richter procedure:ExperimentalAt least unilateral fixation with non-absorbable suture to sacrospinous ligament (fixation could be performed from the anterior approach). At the time of anterior vaginal wall repair or traditional posterior approach, it is possible to use a device for stich fixation (for example Capio, I- stitch etc). The procedure could include salpingo-oophorectomy, total hysterectomy and posterior vaginal wall repair (concomitant procedures are not exclusion criteria).
Receives: Procedure: Amreich-Richter procedure

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Objective cure rate

    absence of pelvic organ prolapse (using the POPQ system - maximal I. stage prolapse)

    Measured: 2 years

  2. Number of failures in each group

    failure is defined as pelvic organ prolapse stage II or higher using the POPQ system during the clinical examination, or as a descent 1 cm below the lower edge of pubic bone based on ultrasound examination.

    Measured: 2 years

  3. de novo dyspareunia

    new occurence of painful sexual intercourse after the surgery.

    Measured: 2 years

  4. mesh related complications

    extrusion rate, pain

    Measured: 2 years

Secondary outcomes (11)
  1. Change of the genital hiatus size

    Measured at Valsalva from rendered 4D volume

    Measured: 2 years

  2. Distance of mesh from the bladder neck

    Measured from sagittal plane, transperineal ultrasound

    Measured: 2 years

  3. Lowest position of the mesh

    Measured from sagittal plane, transperineal ultrasound at Valsalva. Distance in relation to a horizontal line at the level of symphysis.

    Measured: 2 years

  4. ICIQ-UI SF

    International Consultation on Incontinence questionnaire, urinary incontinence, short form

    Measured: 2 years

  5. POP-SS

    Pelvic organ prolapse symptom scale

    Measured: 2 years

  6. PISQ-12

    Prolapse/incontinence sexual questionnaire

    Measured: 2 years

  7. PFDI

    Pelvic floor distress inventory

    Measured: 2 years

  8. TS-VAS

    Treatment satisfaction - visual analog scale

    Measured: 2 years

  9. de novo stress urinary incontinence

    any occurence

    Measured: 2 years

  10. de novo symptoms of overactive bladder

    any occurence

    Measured: 2 years

  11. reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence

    rate

    Measured: 2 years

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted15 Feb 2017
  2. Study start1 Sep 2016
  3. Primary completionMar 2025 (estimated)
  4. Study completionMar 2028 (estimated)

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
None (open label)
Enrolment
462 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03053479
Sponsor's protocol ID
SAME
Acronym
SAME
Status last verified
Feb 2023
First submitted
8 Feb 2017
Last updated
15 Feb 2023
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No: IPD sharing not planned

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, Transvaginal mesh procedure and Amreich-Richter procedure in people with Pelvic Organ Prolapse, run by Charles University, Czech Republic at 7 sites in 2 countries.

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 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: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 Feb 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 7 sites in Czechia, Slovakia. 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?

This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.

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?

Objective cure rate (time frame: 2 years). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. 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 15 Feb 2023.

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