Pelvic Organ ProlapseProSacNCT04878146
Sacrocolpopexy Versus Sacro-spinous Fixation for Prolapse Treatment
A study testing Sacro-spinous fixation, Subtotal hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy in people with Pelvic Organ Prolapse, run by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois.
Trial summary
Prolapse is a condition that causes up to 13% of women to have surgery in their lifetime. There are many surgical techniques for the treatment of prolapse, each with its advantages and disadvantages. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 30 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- What is being tested?
- Sacro-spinous fixation, Subtotal hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 132 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2021to 30 Jun 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 30 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients who:
- Have symptomatic prolapse, degree ≥ 2
- Want surgical management
- Accept subtotal hysterectomy
- Accept the idea of being in the arm of the study, which involves the placement of prosthetic material
- After explaining and reading the information sheet, have understood and signed the consent form
Who cannot join
- Refuse hysterectomy
- Refuse the idea of having prosthetic material implanted
- Prefer conservative management
- Have insufficient understanding of French
- Still wish a pregnancy
- Are not in a condition to withstand surgery of this type
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
Official title: Comparaison Entre la Sacrocervicopexie (SCP) et la Fixation Sacro-spinale (FSS) du Col utérin Dans le Traitement du Prolapsus génital: Etude Prospective randomisée: Etude "ProSac "
Prolapse is a condition that causes up to 13% of women to have surgery in their lifetime. There are many surgical techniques for the treatment of prolapse, each with its advantages and disadvantages. The techniques by vaginal approach aim to put back in tension the supporting tissue, the endopelvic fascia, damaged and released. This technique has the advantage of not causing an abdominal scar, a quick recovery and often little pain. In contrast, the use of already damaged native tissue results in a recurrence rate of up to 15% to 30%.
The other technique is the abdominal route either by laparotomy or by a minimally invasive approach such as laparoscopy, assisted or not by robotics. With this technique, we use prosthetic material introduced around the vaginal wall without opening the latter, therefore without contamination and without dissection of the vaginal wall.
Read more
During upper surgery, a subtotal hysterectomy is performed, that is to say that the uterine cervix is preserved and serves as an anchoring point for the synthetic nets which are attached to the cervix and then sutured to the promontory of the sacrum. (sacrocervicopexy).
In the vaginal route, a total hysterectomy is traditionally performed and the vaginal dome is sutured to the sacro-spinal ligament (Richter's operation). The stitches are then passed through the thickness of the often thin vaginal wall constituting a possible release point of the assembly. There are currently no studies that compare prosthetic sacrocervicopexy with fixation of the remaining cervix to the sacro-spinal ligament without prosthesis, and repair of the endopelvic fascia with native tissue. The study consists of performing a subtotal hysterectomy by minimally invasive approach in both cases and then randomize for either a prosthetic sacrocervicopexy or fixation of the remaining cervix to the sacro-spinal ligament via the abdominal or vaginal route.
Read the detailed description
Genital prolapse is caused by the collapse of the supporting structures of the pelvic organs. This results in the organs sliding down through the pelvic hiatus. The pelvic organs involved are the bladder, which rests on the anterior vaginal wall like a hammock made of supportive connective tissue called the anterior endopelvic fascia. When too much stress is placed on this support tissue, microtrauma or tears gradually weaken this tissue, which relaxes and causes the bladder to gradually lower. In the same way, the rectum is separated from the posterior vaginal wall by this same endopelvic fascia which can suffer the same kind of lesion with the same consequences. The middle compartment, i.e. the top of the vagina is made up of the cervix which is supported by a condensation of this endopelvic tissue in the form of ligaments that suspend this cervix in the center of the pelvic cavity. If these ligaments weaken, the uterus, or the "vaginal cuff" in the event of a previous hysterectomy, will also gradually lower, or even externalize. The middle compartment is considered the keystone of pelvic organ support. All interventions to correct severe prolapse should include suspension of the middle compartment. Traditionally, the sacro-spinal ligament is used during the intervention via the low approach and the sacral promontory via the high approach.
There is a classification (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification or POP-Q) in stages of descent of the pelvic organs. At the first stage, the organs are not exteriorized and in most cases asymptomatic. In the second stage, the vaginal walls reach the vaginal introitus and begin to cause symptoms such as pelvic discomfort or heaviness, whether or not associated with functional disorders of the organs involved. In the following stages, the patients are generally symptomatic.
Prolapse is a condition that causes up to 13% of women to have to have surgery in their lifetime. It causes both an impairment of the quality of life by the discomfort caused by the externalization of the organs and by the functional disorders that it causes, such as urinary or fecal incontinence, bladder emptying disorder, sexual disorders, etc. all of these disorders can be measured by dedicated questionnaires and validated in this population.
There are many surgical techniques for the treatment of prolapse, each with its advantages and disadvantages. The techniques by vaginal approach aim to put back in tension of the native supporting tissue damaged and released. This technique has the advantage of not causing an abdominal scar, a quick recovery and often little pain. On the other hand, the use of already damaged tissue results in a recurrence rate of up to 15-30%. In an attempt to reduce this rate of recurrence, by taking the example of abdominal hernia surgery, prosthetic reinforcements have started to be used in order to make the repair more solid and durable. The prostheses were introduced through a vaginal incision (naturally contaminated medium) and directly under the mucosa. It turned out that a reduction in recurrence was achieved, especially in the anterior compartment, but at the cost of complications directly linked to the use of prostheses such as erosions of the vaginal mucosa, infections and, when using implantation kits supplied by industry, pain that is often difficult to treat.
The other technique is the abdominal route either by laparotomy or by a minimally invasive approach such as laparoscopy, assisted or not by robotics. With this technique, prosthetic material is also used but it is introduced around the vaginal wall without opening it, therefore without contamination and without dissection of the vaginal wall, with a much lower rate of erosion or other complication.
Many studies have compared these different techniques without reaching a definitive conclusion on the best approach. The use of synthetic material introduced vaginally using kits has recently been the subject of warnings from the FDA due to the sometimes severe complications followed by a gradual withdrawal of these products or even a ban in most Anglo-Saxon countries. On the other hand, the use by the abdominal route not causing the same complications has not been questioned by the FDA
. In our department, the management of symptomatic prolapse involves two techniques, vaginal without prosthesis or minimally invasive abdominal with prosthesis, according to various criteria such as age, surgical history or severity of the prolapse. During upper surgery, a subtotal hysterectomy is performed, i.e. the uterine cervix is preserved and serves as an anchoring point for the synthetic nets which are attached to the cervix and then sutured to the promontory of the sacrum. (sacro-cervicopexy). In the vaginal route, a total hysterectomy is traditionally performed and the vaginal dome is sutured to the sacro-spinal ligament (Richter's operation). The stitches are then passed through the thickness of the often thin vaginal wall constituting a possible release point of the assembly. There are currently no studies that compare prosthetic sacro-cervicopexy with fixation of the remaining cervix to the sacro-spinal ligament without prosthesis and repair of the endopelvic fascia with native tissue. The study consists of performing a subtotal hysterectomy by minimally invasive first in both cases and then randomise for the mode of suspension of the uterine cervix, either a prosthetic sacro-cervicopexy or to fix the remaining cervix to the sacro-sinous ligament by abdominal or vaginal route. We would thus obtain more solid anchoring points at the level of the middle compartment with less risk of dropping and a more lasting result.
The main objective is to demonstrate that this new intervention gives similar results to the reference intervention by the upper route. For this we use a composite definition of the success of the intervention which takes into account the anamnestic aspect, the absence of a sensation of prolapse, the clinical examination, the absence of measurable prolapse, and the absence of secondary surgery. The secondary objectives are to ensure a similar improvement in the quality of life in the two groups by relying on specific questionnaires validated for this indication.
- Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Being tested
- Sacro-spinous fixation, Subtotal hysterectomy, 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.
Sacro-spinous fixationProcedure or surgery
Also called Richter operation
Uterine cervix will be attached to the sacro-spinous ligament
Subtotal hysterectomyProcedure or surgery
Done on both arms
SacrocolpopexyProcedure or surgery
Uterine cervix is attached to sacral promontory with two synthetic meshes
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Sacrocolpopexy | Active comparator | Used as the standard intervention for prolapse Receives: Procedure: Subtotal hysterectomy; Procedure: Sacrocolpopexy |
| Sacro-spinous fixation | Experimental | To be demonstrated as non inferior Receives: Procedure: Sacro-spinous fixation; Procedure: Subtotal hysterectomy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Non inferiority of sacro-spinous fixation compared to sacrocolpopexy after 1 year
Anatomical and symptomatic definition of success measured by validated questionnaires
Measured: 1 year
Secondary outcomes (2)
Operative time
Measure of operative time
Measured: Immediately after operation
Complications
Measured with Clavien Dindo classification
Measured: 30 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 May 2021
- Study start1 Jul 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completion30 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Jun 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 Centre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator
- Enrolment
- 132 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Chahin Achtari, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04878146
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CHUV
- Acronym
- ProSac
- Status last verified
- May 2021
- First submitted
- 4 May 2021
- Last updated
- 7 May 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 May 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparaison Entre la Sacrocervicopexie (SCP) et la Fixation Sacro-spinale (FSS) du Col utérin Dans le Traitement du Prolapsus génital: Etude Prospective randomisée: Etude "ProSac "
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04878146
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ProSac / CHUV
- Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 132 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 7 May 2021 (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.
Prolapse is a condition that causes up to 13% of women to have surgery in their lifetime. There are many surgical techniques for the treatment of prolapse, each with its advantages and disadvantages. The techniques by vaginal approach aim to put back in tension the supporting tissue, the endopelvic fascia, damaged and released. This technique has the advantage of not causing an abdominal scar, a quick recovery and often little pain. In contrast, the use of already damaged native tissue results in a recurrence rate of up to 15% to 30%.
The other technique is the abdominal route either by laparotomy or by a minimally invasive approach such as laparoscopy, assisted or not by robotics. With this technique, we use prosthetic material introduced around the vaginal wall without opening the latter, therefore without contamination and without dissection of the vaginal wall.
During upper surgery, a subtotal hysterectomy is performed, that is to say that the uterine cervix is preserved and serves as an anchoring point for the synthetic nets which are attached to the cervix and then sutured to the promontory of the sacrum. (sacrocervicopexy).
In the vaginal route, a total hysterectomy is traditionally performed and the vaginal dome is sutured to the sacro-spinal ligament (Richter's operation). The stitches are then passed through the thickness of the often thin vaginal wall constituting a possible release point of the assembly. There are currently no studies that compare prosthetic sacrocervicopexy with fixation of the remaining cervix to the sacro-spinal ligament without prosthesis, and repair of the endopelvic fascia with native tissue. The study consists of performing a subtotal hysterectomy by minimally invasive approach in both cases and then randomize for either a prosthetic sacrocervicopexy or fixation of the remaining cervix to the sacro-spinal ligament via the abdominal or vaginal route.
Detailed description
Genital prolapse is caused by the collapse of the supporting structures of the pelvic organs. This results in the organs sliding down through the pelvic hiatus. The pelvic organs involved are the bladder, which rests on the anterior vaginal wall like a hammock made of supportive connective tissue called the anterior endopelvic fascia. When too much stress is placed on this support tissue, microtrauma or tears gradually weaken this tissue, which relaxes and causes the bladder to gradually lower. In the same way, the rectum is separated from the posterior vaginal wall by this same endopelvic fascia which can suffer the same kind of lesion with the same consequences. The middle compartment, i.e. the top of the vagina is made up of the cervix which is supported by a condensation of this endopelvic tissue in the form of ligaments that suspend this cervix in the center of the pelvic cavity. If these ligaments weaken, the uterus, or the "vaginal cuff" in the event of a previous hysterectomy, will also gradually lower, or even externalize. The middle compartment is considered the keystone of pelvic organ support. All interventions to correct severe prolapse should include suspension of the middle compartment. Traditionally, the sacro-spinal ligament is used during the intervention via the low approach and the sacral promontory via the high approach.
There is a classification (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification or POP-Q) in stages of descent of the pelvic organs. At the first stage, the organs are not exteriorized and in most cases asymptomatic. In the second stage, the vaginal walls reach the vaginal introitus and begin to cause symptoms such as pelvic discomfort or heaviness, whether or not associated with functional disorders of the organs involved. In the following stages, the patients are generally symptomatic.
Prolapse is a condition that causes up to 13% of women to have to have surgery in their lifetime. It causes both an impairment of the quality of life by the discomfort caused by the externalization of the organs and by the functional disorders that it causes, such as urinary or fecal incontinence, bladder emptying disorder, sexual disorders, etc. all of these disorders can be measured by dedicated questionnaires and validated in this population.
There are many surgical techniques for the treatment of prolapse, each with its advantages and disadvantages. The techniques by vaginal approach aim to put back in tension of the native supporting tissue damaged and released. This technique has the advantage of not causing an abdominal scar, a quick recovery and often little pain. On the other hand, the use of already damaged tissue results in a recurrence rate of up to 15-30%. In an attempt to reduce this rate of recurrence, by taking the example of abdominal hernia surgery, prosthetic reinforcements have started to be used in order to make the repair more solid and durable. The prostheses were introduced through a vaginal incision (naturally contaminated medium) and directly under the mucosa. It turned out that a reduction in recurrence was achieved, especially in the anterior compartment, but at the cost of complications directly linked to the use of prostheses such as erosions of the vaginal mucosa, infections and, when using implantation kits supplied by industry, pain that is often difficult to treat.
The other technique is the abdominal route either by laparotomy or by a minimally invasive approach such as laparoscopy, assisted or not by robotics. With this technique, prosthetic material is also used but it is introduced around the vaginal wall without opening it, therefore without contamination and without dissection of the vaginal wall, with a much lower rate of erosion or other complication.
Many studies have compared these different techniques without reaching a definitive conclusion on the best approach. The use of synthetic material introduced vaginally using kits has recently been the subject of warnings from the FDA due to the sometimes severe complications followed by a gradual withdrawal of these products or even a ban in most Anglo-Saxon countries. On the other hand, the use by the abdominal route not causing the same complications has not been questioned by the FDA
. In our department, the management of symptomatic prolapse involves two techniques, vaginal without prosthesis or minimally invasive abdominal with prosthesis, according to various criteria such as age, surgical history or severity of the prolapse. During upper surgery, a subtotal hysterectomy is performed, i.e. the uterine cervix is preserved and serves as an anchoring point for the synthetic nets which are attached to the cervix and then sutured to the promontory of the sacrum. (sacro-cervicopexy). In the vaginal route, a total hysterectomy is traditionally performed and the vaginal dome is sutured to the sacro-spinal ligament (Richter's operation). The stitches are then passed through the thickness of the often thin vaginal wall constituting a possible release point of the assembly. There are currently no studies that compare prosthetic sacro-cervicopexy with fixation of the remaining cervix to the sacro-spinal ligament without prosthesis and repair of the endopelvic fascia with native tissue. The study consists of performing a subtotal hysterectomy by minimally invasive first in both cases and then randomise for the mode of suspension of the uterine cervix, either a prosthetic sacro-cervicopexy or to fix the remaining cervix to the sacro-sinous ligament by abdominal or vaginal route. We would thus obtain more solid anchoring points at the level of the middle compartment with less risk of dropping and a more lasting result.
The main objective is to demonstrate that this new intervention gives similar results to the reference intervention by the upper route. For this we use a composite definition of the success of the intervention which takes into account the anamnestic aspect, the absence of a sensation of prolapse, the clinical examination, the absence of measurable prolapse, and the absence of secondary surgery. The secondary objectives are to ensure a similar improvement in the quality of life in the two groups by relying on specific questionnaires validated for this indication.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Sacrocolpopexy | Active comparator | Procedure: Subtotal hysterectomy, Procedure: SacrocolpopexyUsed as the standard intervention for prolapse |
| Sacro-spinous fixation | Experimental | Procedure: Sacro-spinous fixation, Procedure: Subtotal hysterectomyTo be demonstrated as non inferior |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 30 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Have symptomatic prolapse, degree ≥ 2
- Want surgical management
- Accept subtotal hysterectomy
- Accept the idea of being in the arm of the study, which involves the placement of prosthetic material
- After explaining and reading the information sheet, have understood and signed the consent form
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Refuse hysterectomy
- Refuse the idea of having prosthetic material implanted
- Prefer conservative management
- Have insufficient understanding of French
- Still wish a pregnancy
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sacro-spinous fixationAlso: Richter operationUterine cervix will be attached to the sacro-spinous ligament | Procedure or surgery | Sacro-spinous fixation |
| Subtotal hysterectomyDone on both arms | Procedure or surgery | Sacro-spinous fixation, Sacrocolpopexy |
| SacrocolpopexyUterine cervix is attached to sacral promontory with two synthetic meshes | Procedure or surgery | Sacrocolpopexy |
Primary outcome
Non inferiority of sacro-spinous fixation compared to sacrocolpopexy after 1 year
Time frame: 1 year
Anatomical and symptomatic definition of success measured by validated questionnaires
2 secondary outcomes
Operative time
Time frame: Immediately after operation
Complications
Time frame: 30 days
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 7 May 2021.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
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.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Sacro-spinous fixation, Subtotal hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy in people with Pelvic Organ Prolapse, run by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois.
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 6 inclusion and 6 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: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 May 2021. 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?
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?
Contact Chahin Achtari, MD (+41213143237, chahin.achtari@chuv.ch), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Non inferiority of sacro-spinous fixation compared to sacrocolpopexy after 1 year (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 7 May 2021.