Pelvic Organ ProlapseVALSNCT04332315
Vaginally Assisted Laparoscopic Sacropolpopexy
A study testing Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in people with Pelvic Organ Prolapse, run by Bezmialem Vakif University.
Trial summary
Introduction and Hypothesis: Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (VALS), which is a combined surgical approach where a vaginal hysterectomy is initially performed, followed by transvaginal placement of synthetic mesh and laparoscopic suspension, can be an alternative to overcome the dissection, suturing… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- What is being tested?
- Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 87 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2015to 30 Mar 2020
- 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 80 years
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Women suffering from prolapse and who desired surgical correction of their prolapse were included to trial.
Who cannot join
- Fertile women who have not completed their family and women with previous POP surgery, POP stage ≤ 2 and women who prefer conservative management or uterus sparing surgery were excluded from the study.
About this study
Official title: Short and Middle Term Results of Vaginally Assisted Laparoscopic Sacropolpopexy
Introduction and Hypothesis: Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (VALS), which is a combined surgical approach where a vaginal hysterectomy is initially performed, followed by transvaginal placement of synthetic mesh and laparoscopic suspension, can be an alternative to overcome the dissection, suturing limitations of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. The aim of this study was to compare the middle term anatomic outcomes, complication rates, and operative times of patients with uterovaginal prolapse undergoing VALS with those of women undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
Methods: This is a prospective cohort study that evaluates operation times, anesthesia times, estimated blood loss, middle term outcomes, perioperative and postoperative complications. We compared the results of 47 women who had the VALS to that of 32 abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
Read the detailed description
This is a prospective cohort study comparing VALS method to AS with concurrent hysterectomy in patients advanced symptomatic utero vaginal prolapse stage 3 or 4 according to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. This study was carried out from July 2015 to December 2018. Women suffering from prolapse and who desired surgical correction of their prolapse were included to trial. Fertile women who have not completed their family and women with previous POP surgery, POP stage ≤ 2 and women who prefer conservative management or uterus sparing surgery were excluded from the study. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before enrolment. This study was approved by the institutional review board. Demographic data including age at surgery, parity, menopausal status, body mass index (BMI), previous pelvic surgeries (hysterectomy, pelvic floor repair, etc.), and comorbidities were obtained from the patient's medical records.
Operations:
The VALS procedure consists of two steps. First, vaginal hysterectomy or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy performed, anterior vaginal wall dissected up to bladder neck starting from initial vaginal incision, posterior vaginal wall dissected from rectum starting from initial vaginal incision up to distal third of posterior vaginal wall. At this step, eversion of the vaginal walls with the aid of surgeon's fingers would facilitate dissection sharply or bluntly. Two hand-sewn, 15 cm long, 3 cm width type 1 polypropylene meshes transfixed to anterior and posterior vaginal wall with 4-6 polyglactin suture to each wall. The free arms of fixed meshes are introduced to the peritoneal cavity and the vaginal vault is closed with absorbable polyglactin suture. Mid urethral sling and/or perineoplasty were performed vaginally before laparoscopy. After changing gloves of surgery team and setting of endoscopy unit, laparoscopy phase was performed with one intraumbilical (10 mm), 3 lateral abdominal (5 mm) trocars. The sacral promontory is identified and the overlying peritoneum is opened up to vaginal cuff laterally to the rectum and medially to the right uterosacral ligament. Two mesh strips fixated to anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum with two separate no: 1 polypropylene sutures without tension. The mesh was then peritonealized with absorbable interrupted extracorporeal sutures.
AS was performed via Pfannenstiel incision after total or subtotal abdominal hysterectomy was performed regarding the surgeon's choice or presence of cervical pathology. Sacrocolpopexy was performed similar to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. The rectosigmoid colon was reflected to the left of the midline to expose the presacral area. The sacral promontory is identified and the overlying peritoneum is opened vertically with scissors by sharp dissection up to vaginal cuff laterally to the rectum and medially to the right uterosacral ligament. After placing a sponge stick or sizer to vagina for manipulation and easy identification of dissection plane, anterior vaginal wall dissected from bladder and posterior vaginal wall dissected from rectum. The surgeon has decided the limit of anterior and posterior vaginal wall dissection. The type 1 polyprolene mesh cut and attached with polyprolpelene suture in a Y formation, typically with 5 cm arm length, 3 cm width and 15-18 cm total length. The appropriate length for each patient is determined intraoperatively. The arms of mesh transfixed to anterior and posterior vaginal wall with 4-6 polyglactin suture to each wall starting from distally. Long arm of mesh fixated to anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum with two separate no: 1 polypropylene sutures without tension. The excess mesh parts were trimmed over the sacral promontory after the fixation. The mesh was then reperitonealized with absorbable sutures.
We recorded operation times, anesthesia time, additional procedures time, estimated blood loss, outcomes, perioperative and postoperative complications. Anesthesia time began with the anesthetic induction and ended with recovering from anesthesia and transfer of patient to recovery room, including positioning, skin preparation, covering and surgical equipment set up. The total operating time began with the first skin incision and ended with the last closure of an incision. Exclusive operation time of index procedures was calculated by subtracting the additional surgery time from the total operation time.
Early complications were defined as any complication that occurred during surgery or within 4 weeks postoperatively including injury to the bladder, bowel, vagina, ureters, or vessels; wound complications; hematoma, abscess, urinary tract infection, gluteal pain, ileus, blood transfusion, and mesh infection. Late complications described any complications occurred during the entire follow-up period after 4 weeks such as; mesh exposition, mesh extrusion mesh perforation, ileus, dyspareunia, vesicovaginal fistul, rectovaginal fistul, ureter obstruction or fistulization.
Postoperatively, subjects were evaluated for subjective and anatomic outcomes of the operations by vaginal examination at 1 week and 1, 3, and 12months, every years after surgery. Recurrence was defined as stage II or greater apical prolapse, with the leading edge of the C point to 1 cm on either side of the introitus that requires surgical treatment. Objective failure was defined as stage II or greater pelvic organ prolapse, with the leading edge of the prolapse to 1 cm on either side of the introitus. Subjective failure defined as, if the patients responses were "no change" and "minimally/much worse" in Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) which used to assess the outcome of surgical treatment [10].
Statistical analysis was performed after normality testing (histogram analysis and/or Kolmogorov-Smirnov testing) using IBM SPSS, version 21 (IBM Inc., Armonk, NY). The student's t-test was used for comparisons of normally distributed variables, the Mann-Whitney U-test was used for non parametric variables, χ2 test and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. A sample size calculation was performed by using data from von Pechman's pilot study assuming that expected difference in means 0.0, standart deviation is 1.3 from LAS study which compares laparoscopic and open sacrocolpopexy [9, 11]. A sample size of 27 for each group was calculated based on these data, 0.05, one-sided t test was estimated to have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the VALS and AS techniques are not equivalent.
- Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Being tested
- Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
- 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.
Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexyProcedure or surgery
Also called Abdominal sacrocolpopexy
The VALS procedure consists of two steps. First, vaginal hysterectomy or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy performed, anterior vaginal wall dissected up to bladder neck starting from initial vaginal incision, posterior vaginal wall dissected from rectum starting from initial vaginal incision up to distal third of posterior vaginal wall.The free arms of fixed meshes are introduced to the peritoneal cavity and the vaginal vault is closed with absorbable polyglactin suture. laparoscopy phase was performed with one intraumbilical (10 mm), 3 lateral abdominal (5 mm) trocars. Two mesh strips fixated to anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum with two separate no: 1 polypropylene sutures without tension.
AS was performed via Pfannenstiel incision after total or subtotal abdominal hysterectomy
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| VALS | Active comparator | Vaginally asissted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy Receives: Procedure: Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy |
| AS | Active comparator | Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy Receives: Procedure: Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Middle term failure
stage II or greater apical prolapse, with the leading edge of the C point to 1 cm on either side of the introitus that requires surgical treatment
Measured: 2 years
Secondary outcomes (2)
anatomic failure
as stage II or greater pelvic organ prolapse, with the leading edge of the prolapse to 1 cm on either side of the introitus
Measured: 2 years
subjective failure
Subjective failure defined as, if the patients responses were "no change" and "minimally/much worse" in Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) which used to assess the outcome of surgical treatment
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 posted2 Apr 2020
- Study start1 Jul 2015
- Primary completion1 Feb 2020
- Study completion30 Mar 2020
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 Bezmialem Vakif UniversityThe 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
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 87 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Bezmialem Vakif University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Serdar Aydın, Bezmialem Vakif University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04332315
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- VALS01
- Acronym
- VALS
- Status last verified
- Mar 2020
- First submitted
- 31 Mar 2020
- Last updated
- 2 Apr 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Apr 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Short and Middle Term Results of Vaginally Assisted Laparoscopic Sacropolpopexy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04332315
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- VALS / VALS01
- Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 87 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Bezmialem Vakif UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Feb 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Mar 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 2 Apr 2020 (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.
Introduction and Hypothesis: Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (VALS), which is a combined surgical approach where a vaginal hysterectomy is initially performed, followed by transvaginal placement of synthetic mesh and laparoscopic suspension, can be an alternative to overcome the dissection, suturing limitations of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. The aim of this study was to compare the middle term anatomic outcomes, complication rates, and operative times of patients with uterovaginal prolapse undergoing VALS with those of women undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
Methods: This is a prospective cohort study that evaluates operation times, anesthesia times, estimated blood loss, middle term outcomes, perioperative and postoperative complications. We compared the results of 47 women who had the VALS to that of 32 abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
Detailed description
This is a prospective cohort study comparing VALS method to AS with concurrent hysterectomy in patients advanced symptomatic utero vaginal prolapse stage 3 or 4 according to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. This study was carried out from July 2015 to December 2018. Women suffering from prolapse and who desired surgical correction of their prolapse were included to trial. Fertile women who have not completed their family and women with previous POP surgery, POP stage ≤ 2 and women who prefer conservative management or uterus sparing surgery were excluded from the study. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before enrolment. This study was approved by the institutional review board. Demographic data including age at surgery, parity, menopausal status, body mass index (BMI), previous pelvic surgeries (hysterectomy, pelvic floor repair, etc.), and comorbidities were obtained from the patient's medical records.
Operations:
The VALS procedure consists of two steps. First, vaginal hysterectomy or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy performed, anterior vaginal wall dissected up to bladder neck starting from initial vaginal incision, posterior vaginal wall dissected from rectum starting from initial vaginal incision up to distal third of posterior vaginal wall. At this step, eversion of the vaginal walls with the aid of surgeon's fingers would facilitate dissection sharply or bluntly. Two hand-sewn, 15 cm long, 3 cm width type 1 polypropylene meshes transfixed to anterior and posterior vaginal wall with 4-6 polyglactin suture to each wall. The free arms of fixed meshes are introduced to the peritoneal cavity and the vaginal vault is closed with absorbable polyglactin suture. Mid urethral sling and/or perineoplasty were performed vaginally before laparoscopy. After changing gloves of surgery team and setting of endoscopy unit, laparoscopy phase was performed with one intraumbilical (10 mm), 3 lateral abdominal (5 mm) trocars. The sacral promontory is identified and the overlying peritoneum is opened up to vaginal cuff laterally to the rectum and medially to the right uterosacral ligament. Two mesh strips fixated to anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum with two separate no: 1 polypropylene sutures without tension. The mesh was then peritonealized with absorbable interrupted extracorporeal sutures.
AS was performed via Pfannenstiel incision after total or subtotal abdominal hysterectomy was performed regarding the surgeon's choice or presence of cervical pathology. Sacrocolpopexy was performed similar to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. The rectosigmoid colon was reflected to the left of the midline to expose the presacral area. The sacral promontory is identified and the overlying peritoneum is opened vertically with scissors by sharp dissection up to vaginal cuff laterally to the rectum and medially to the right uterosacral ligament. After placing a sponge stick or sizer to vagina for manipulation and easy identification of dissection plane, anterior vaginal wall dissected from bladder and posterior vaginal wall dissected from rectum. The surgeon has decided the limit of anterior and posterior vaginal wall dissection. The type 1 polyprolene mesh cut and attached with polyprolpelene suture in a Y formation, typically with 5 cm arm length, 3 cm width and 15-18 cm total length. The appropriate length for each patient is determined intraoperatively. The arms of mesh transfixed to anterior and posterior vaginal wall with 4-6 polyglactin suture to each wall starting from distally. Long arm of mesh fixated to anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum with two separate no: 1 polypropylene sutures without tension. The excess mesh parts were trimmed over the sacral promontory after the fixation. The mesh was then reperitonealized with absorbable sutures.
We recorded operation times, anesthesia time, additional procedures time, estimated blood loss, outcomes, perioperative and postoperative complications. Anesthesia time began with the anesthetic induction and ended with recovering from anesthesia and transfer of patient to recovery room, including positioning, skin preparation, covering and surgical equipment set up. The total operating time began with the first skin incision and ended with the last closure of an incision. Exclusive operation time of index procedures was calculated by subtracting the additional surgery time from the total operation time.
Early complications were defined as any complication that occurred during surgery or within 4 weeks postoperatively including injury to the bladder, bowel, vagina, ureters, or vessels; wound complications; hematoma, abscess, urinary tract infection, gluteal pain, ileus, blood transfusion, and mesh infection. Late complications described any complications occurred during the entire follow-up period after 4 weeks such as; mesh exposition, mesh extrusion mesh perforation, ileus, dyspareunia, vesicovaginal fistul, rectovaginal fistul, ureter obstruction or fistulization.
Postoperatively, subjects were evaluated for subjective and anatomic outcomes of the operations by vaginal examination at 1 week and 1, 3, and 12months, every years after surgery. Recurrence was defined as stage II or greater apical prolapse, with the leading edge of the C point to 1 cm on either side of the introitus that requires surgical treatment. Objective failure was defined as stage II or greater pelvic organ prolapse, with the leading edge of the prolapse to 1 cm on either side of the introitus. Subjective failure defined as, if the patients responses were "no change" and "minimally/much worse" in Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) which used to assess the outcome of surgical treatment [10].
Statistical analysis was performed after normality testing (histogram analysis and/or Kolmogorov-Smirnov testing) using IBM SPSS, version 21 (IBM Inc., Armonk, NY). The student's t-test was used for comparisons of normally distributed variables, the Mann-Whitney U-test was used for non parametric variables, χ2 test and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables. A sample size calculation was performed by using data from von Pechman's pilot study assuming that expected difference in means 0.0, standart deviation is 1.3 from LAS study which compares laparoscopic and open sacrocolpopexy [9, 11]. A sample size of 27 for each group was calculated based on these data, 0.05, one-sided t test was estimated to have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the VALS and AS techniques are not equivalent.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| VALS | Active comparator | Procedure: Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexyVaginally asissted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy |
| AS | Active comparator | Procedure: Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexyAbdominal Sacrocolpopexy |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Women suffering from prolapse and who desired surgical correction of their prolapse were included to trial.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Fertile women who have not completed their family and women with previous POP surgery, POP stage ≤ 2 and women who prefer conservative management or uterus sparing surgery were excluded from the study.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexyAlso: Abdominal sacrocolpopexyThe VALS procedure consists of two steps. First, vaginal hysterectomy or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy performed, anterior vaginal wall dissected up to bladder neck starting from initial vaginal incision, posterior vaginal wall dissected from rectum starting from initial vaginal incision up to distal third of posterior vaginal wall.The free arms of fixed meshes are introduced to the peritoneal cavity and the vaginal vault is closed with absorbable polyglactin suture. laparoscopy phase was performed with one intraumbilical (10 mm), 3 lateral abdominal (5 mm) trocars. Two mesh strips fixated to anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum with two separate no: 1 polypropylene sutures without tension. AS was performed via Pfannenstiel incision after total or subtotal abdominal hysterectomy | Procedure or surgery | AS, VALS |
Primary outcome
Middle term failure
Time frame: 2 years
stage II or greater apical prolapse, with the leading edge of the C point to 1 cm on either side of the introitus that requires surgical treatment
2 secondary outcomes
anatomic failure
Time frame: 2 years
subjective failure
Time frame: 2 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 2 Apr 2020.
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.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in people with Pelvic Organ Prolapse, run by Bezmialem Vakif University.
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 1 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 2 Apr 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
Middle term failure (time frame: 2 years). 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 2 Apr 2020.