CClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT00470288Updated May 7, 2007

Randomized Controlled Trial of Bladder Flap vs.None

An interventional study of bladder flap during cesarean section in Cesarean Delivery Procedures, sponsored by Mountain Area Health Organization Center. Status unknown at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2007-05-07.

Sponsored by Mountain Area Health Organization Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Apr 2007), so the status shown — last known as Recruiting — may be out of date.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
123
Allocation
Randomized
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

Objective: To compare outcomes in cesarean section patients undergoing bladder flap versus none. Hypotheses: Operative time will be reduced with the elimination of a bladder flap during cesarean delivery and intra-operative and post-operative morbidity will not be significantly different.

Patients >= 35 wks gestation undergoing cesarean delivery will be randomized to bladder flap vs. none. Primary outcome is operative time (start to delivery); secondary outcomes include: injuries, EBL, intra-operative and post-operative complications,pain medication, hospital stay duration.

Read the detailed description
  1. Title A Randomized Controlled Trial of Bladder Flap vs. None in Cesarean Section
  2. Background (This section should be used to provide a rationale for the conduct of the study. Refer to existent or preliminary studies as necessary) The standard of care in performing cesarean delivery is to perform a bladder flap in the procedures.1 The creation of a bladder flap essentially allows a surgeon to create a space between the uterus and the bladder so that he/she has better access to the lower portion of the uterus where a low transverse incision can be made. This procedure involves making a superficial incision into the peritoneum, or the cell lining of the abdominal cavity, and the moving the bladder down and away from the lower portion of the uterus. A retractor or a bladder blade is then inserted into this space to hold the bladder away from the uterus (see Appendix A).2 Use of the bladder flap in cesarean delivery dates back to 1878 in the pre-antibiotic era,3 and theoretically, the bladder flap allows better access to the low portion of the uterus while decreasing risk of bladder injury and infection. However, several recent but small studies suggest the inclusion of the bladder flap confers no advantage and may actually contribute to greater morbidity postoperatively. 4-5 Additionally, the incidence of bladder injuries is 0.3%, and most injuries resulted during the formation of the bladder flap.6 The evidence from these studies are limited by the inclusion of other modifications in surgical procedures and a lack of replication of results, respectively. Thus there is insufficient evidence to either support or reject the inclusion of bladder flaps in cesarean deliveries (Evidence grade C).7-8
  3. Specific Objectives (Enumerate the objectives and nature of the measured end-points. Justify the use of surrogate clinical end-points as necessary)
  1. To compare outcomes in cesarean section patients undergoing bladder flap versus none.
  1. Study design (Explicate the nature of the study - observational vs experimental. Differentiate between cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional and randomized clinical trials. For the latter, provide sufficient supporting justification for the experimental arm. If it is a placebo-controlled trial, please state whether clinical equipoise exists between the placebo and experimental arm.) Randomized controlled trial.

Endpoints:

Total operating time (continuous) and Time of delivery to end of surgery (continuous) Estimated blood loss (continuous) Post operative fever (categorical) Bladder injury (categorical) Pre- and post-operative pain medication (continuous) and Analog pain scale (continuous)

  1. Subject Selection (Include an enumeration of inclusion and exclusion criteria)

MAHEC patients presenting for delivery at Mission Hospitals requiring a cesarean section

Inclusion Exclusion Cesarean section All vaginal deliveries

≥ 35 weeks gestation \< 35 weeks gestation Able to provide consent for medical treatment Urgent cesarean section Unable to provide consent for medical treatment Medical complications prohibitive of bladder flap Medical complications prohibitive of no bladder flap

  1. Statistical methods, data analysis and interpretation (Include the factors considered in determining an appropriate sample size) Sample size of 100 per group based on an estimated mean difference of 5 minutes on total operating time (study arm 45±12.5 vs. bladder flap arm 50±12.5; Power=080; alpha=0.05; two-tailed).4

Per protocol analysis utilizing analysis of variance or for continuous variables and chi square analysis of categorical variables.

  1. Study Procedures (Describe the chronological flow of the study, using schematic diagrams as necessary. Distinguish clearly between treatment-related [medically-indicated] and research-related procedures the subject will undergo)

All OB patients presenting at L\&D for delivery will be approached for informed consent. consenting patients for whom a cesarean delivery is medically indicated will be randomized to bladder flap vs. none. Patients unable to consent for medical treatment or not wishing to consent for the project will be excluded. Consenting patients for whom a cesarean is medically indicated will be randomly assigned to bladder flap vs. by previously allocation of subject number. Patients will undergo assigned procedure unless excluded at the discretion of the surgeons who determine the alternate procedure is medically indicated. Patients undergoing the assigned procedure will have all data extracted from hospital medical records and entered into SPSS for a per-protocol analysis.

02

Conditions studied

  • Cesarean Delivery Procedures

Keywords

  • cesarean delivery
  • bladder flaps
03

In context

Lead sponsor

This is the only study on the registry with Mountain Area Health Organization Center as lead sponsor.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Cesarean delivery at >=35 weeks gestation;
  • Able to provide informed consent

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Vaginal delivery;
  • Delivery \< 35 weeks gestation;
  • STAT surgery;
  • Unable to provide consent;
  • Medical complication/condition incompatable with random asiignment
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single
Enrollment
123 participants (estimated)

Interventions

  • Procedurebladder flap during cesarean section
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. operative time: start of surgery to delivery of infant

    Time frame: immediate: during cesarean surgery

Secondary outcomes

  1. estimated blood loss

    Time frame: immediate

  2. bladder injuries

    Time frame: immediate

  3. other intra-operative complications

    Time frame: immediate

  4. intra-operative transfusions

    Time frame: immediate

  5. post-operative complications

    Time frame: post-op hospitalization

  6. medication use: antibiotics and narcotics

    Time frame: post-op hospitalization

  7. duration of post-op hospitalization

    Time frame: post-op hospitalization

  8. readmisison post discharge

    Time frame: 6 weeks post-op

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Mission Hospitals
    Asheville, North Carolina 28801, United States
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, Joura EA. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;98(6):1089-92. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01570-8. PubMed 11755558 ↗
  • Wood RM, Simon H, Oz AU. Pelosi-type vs. traditional cesarean delivery. A prospective comparison. J Reprod Med. 1999 Sep;44(9):788-95. PubMed 10509303 ↗
  • Eisenkop SM, Richman R, Platt LD, Paul RH. Urinary tract injury during cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Nov;60(5):591-6. PubMed 7145252 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 7, 2007, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00470288
Lead sponsor
Mountain Area Health Organization Center
First posted
May 7, 2007
Start date
Oct 2005
Completion
Jun 2007 (estimated)
Last update
May 7, 2007

Study contacts

Eric C Helms, MD
Contact
Eric.helms@mahec.net
828-771-5501
Shelley L Galvin, MA
Contact
Shelley.Galvin@mahec.net
828-771-5501
Eric C Helms, MD
principal investigator · MAHEC OB/GYN
Shelley L Galvin, MA
study director · MAHEC OB/GYN

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Apr 2007. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion