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.
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
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.
- Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- 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 group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy | Experimental | Laparoscopic 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 procedure | Experimental | Hydrodissection 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: | Experimental | At 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.
Objective cure rate
absence of pelvic organ prolapse (using the POPQ system - maximal I. stage prolapse)
Measured: 2 years
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
de novo dyspareunia
new occurence of painful sexual intercourse after the surgery.
Measured: 2 years
mesh related complications
extrusion rate, pain
Measured: 2 years
Secondary outcomes (11)
Change of the genital hiatus size
Measured at Valsalva from rendered 4D volume
Measured: 2 years
Distance of mesh from the bladder neck
Measured from sagittal plane, transperineal ultrasound
Measured: 2 years
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
ICIQ-UI SF
International Consultation on Incontinence questionnaire, urinary incontinence, short form
Measured: 2 years
POP-SS
Pelvic organ prolapse symptom scale
Measured: 2 years
PISQ-12
Prolapse/incontinence sexual questionnaire
Measured: 2 years
PFDI
Pelvic floor distress inventory
Measured: 2 years
TS-VAS
Treatment satisfaction - visual analog scale
Measured: 2 years
de novo stress urinary incontinence
any occurence
Measured: 2 years
de novo symptoms of overactive bladder
any occurence
Measured: 2 years
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.
- First posted15 Feb 2017
- Study start1 Sep 2016
- Primary completionMar 2025 (estimated)
- Study completionMar 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Pelvic Organ ProlapseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Charles University, Czech RepublicThe 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
- 462 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Charles University, Czech Republic
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Kamil Svabik, Charles University, Czech Republic
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
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Feb 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of the Efficacy of Three Surgical Methods in the Treatment of POP: Sacrocolpopexy,the Amreich-Richter Procedure and Transvaginal Mesh
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03053479
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SAME / SAME
- Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Keywords
- surgery, native tissue prolapse repair, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, vaginal mesh
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 462 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Charles University, Czech RepublicUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Sep 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Mar 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Mar 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 15 Feb 2017 (actual)
- 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.
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.
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy | Experimental | Procedure: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexyLaparoscopic 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). |
| Transvaginal mesh procedure | Experimental | Procedure: Transvaginal mesh procedureHydrodissection 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). |
| Amreich-Richter procedure: | Experimental | Procedure: Amreich-Richter procedureAt 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). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- 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.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- previous pelvic reconstructive surgery with mesh
- isolated posterior compartment prolapse
- previous radiotherapy in true pelvis
- contraindication for one of the planned surgical methods.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexysee arm/group descriptions | Procedure or surgery | Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy |
| Transvaginal mesh proceduresee arm/group descriptions | Procedure or surgery | Transvaginal mesh procedure |
| Amreich-Richter proceduresee arm/group descriptions | Procedure or surgery | Amreich-Richter procedure: |
Primary outcome
Objective cure rate
Time frame: 2 years
absence of pelvic organ prolapse (using the POPQ system - maximal I. stage prolapse)
Number of failures in each group
Time frame: 2 years
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.
de novo dyspareunia
Time frame: 2 years
new occurence of painful sexual intercourse after the surgery.
mesh related complications
Time frame: 2 years
extrusion rate, pain
11 secondary outcomes
Change of the genital hiatus size
Time frame: 2 years
Distance of mesh from the bladder neck
Time frame: 2 years
Lowest position of the mesh
Time frame: 2 years
ICIQ-UI SF
Time frame: 2 years
POP-SS
Time frame: 2 years
PISQ-12
Time frame: 2 years
PFDI
Time frame: 2 years
TS-VAS
Time frame: 2 years
de novo stress urinary incontinence
Time frame: 2 years
de novo symptoms of overactive bladder
Time frame: 2 years
reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence
Time frame: 2 years
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 Feb 2023.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. IPD sharing not planned
Related trials for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Return to Physical Activity After Retropublic Transvaginal Sling and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy
Stress Urinary Incontinence, Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Active, not recruitingObservational study
i-Stitch for Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation (SSLF)
Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Genital Prolapse
Recruiting
Safety and Performance of a Pelvic Floor Mesh Implant for Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy (ProGYNious)
Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), Synthetic Mesh
Recruiting
Pelvic Floor Muscle Training During Pregnancy
Urinary Incontinence, Anal Incontinence
Not yet recruiting
Perineal Protection Device for Reducing Perineal Trauma During Vaginal Delivery in First-time Mothers: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, Perineal Laceration
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.
7 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
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.