CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03445442Updated Mar 22, 2018

Different Surgical Techniques Used for Prolapse Repair in Elderly Patient

An observational study in Unrecognized Condition, sponsored by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice. Completed. Open to female participants aged 70 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-03-22.

Sponsored by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrollment
214
Ages
70 Years to 80 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

The investigator aimed to compare various pelvic floor repairs in female aged from 70 to 80 years old, to see which procedure in terms of treatment-related complications of SCP, VMR and NTR by comparing the operative and functional outcomes in this patient population.

Read the detailed description

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a global health care issue that could have a significant impact on pelvic floor function and quality of life (QOL), while seldom having the potential to be life-threatening. Prevalence of POP increases with age. In women older than 80, 11% undergo a surgical procedure. The incidence of degenerative diseases and multiple co-morbidities increases with age, and advanced age is also associated with an increase in morbidity generally for gynecologic procedures. Furthermore, greater comorbidity beforehand can predispose patients to postoperative complications such as bleeding, hematoma, pain, infectious. As a result hospital stays are longer and the surgical results are compromised.

Surgical techniques should optimize functional results and minimize complications. In POP surgery, younger women are good candidates for sacrocolpopexy (SCP), because of the improved long term functional result, while women older than 80 may have a satisfactory outcome with fewer complication with a vaginal repair with mesh (VMR) or native tissue (NTR). The increasing prevalence of POP, and the increasing population of women aged 70-80 requires an evaluation of the appropriate surgical management since women in this age group may be candidates for all types of surgical repair.

02

Conditions studied

  • Unrecognized Condition

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Elderly
  • Native tissue repair
  • Pelvic Organ Prolapse
  • Sacrocolpopexy
  • Vaginal mesh repair
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
70 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

The study cohort is selected from our institution. The study involves elderly females over 70 years old with advanced pelvic organ prolapse.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients with a pelvic organ prolapse
  • Patients aged between 70 and 80 years old
  • Patients with symptomatic anterior, apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse, stage 2 or greater

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with a previous history of pelvic surgery for a cancer diagnosis are excluded
  • Patients with a surgical repair specific to the existing defect site (For group 2)
04

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrollment
214 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Group 1

    Sacrocolpopexy (SCP)

    Procedure: SCP

  • Group 2

    Native tissue repair surgery (NTR)

    Procedure: NTR

  • Group 3

    Vaginal mesh repair surgery (VMR)

    Procedure: VMR

Interventions

  • ProcedureSCP

    Sacrocolpopexy (SCP) aims to secure the anterior vaginal wall, the uterus more or less the posterior vaginal wall using polypropylene prostheses and to secure them to the presacral ligament to restore the patient's anatomical features and improve pelvic symptoms

  • ProcedureNTR

    Native tissue repair surgery (NTR) consist of site-specific surgical repair of the existing defect (anterior and/or posterior) using non-absorbable sutures. Specifically, anterior and/or posterior colporrhaphy for cystocele and rectocele respectively after adequate hydrodissection of the vesicovaginal or rectovaginal space.

  • ProcedureVMR

    Vaginal mesh repair surgery (VMR) is performed using a single-incision mesh system. A single vertical incision is made in the anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall. A full-thickness dissection is performed laterally and apically to the ischial spine.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Post-operative complications

    All complications are recorded, corresponding to Clavien Dindo classification.

    Time frame: 12 months follow-up

Secondary outcomes

  1. Anatomical success rate

    Assessed by recovery time and anatomical correction

    Time frame: 12 months follow-up

  2. Surgical satisfaction

    Assessed by the validated Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ-8)

    Time frame: 12 months follow-up

06

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

07

References and documents

Publications

  • Samuelsson EC, Victor FT, Tibblin G, Svardsudd KF. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Feb;180(2 Pt 1):299-305. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70203-6. PubMed 9988790 ↗
  • Gomelsky A, Penson DF, Dmochowski RR. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery: the evidence for the repairs. BJU Int. 2011 Jun;107(11):1704-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10123.x. PubMed 21592280 ↗
  • Williams-Russo P, Sharrock NE, Mattis S, Szatrowski TP, Charlson ME. Cognitive effects after epidural vs general anesthesia in older adults. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1995 Jul 5;274(1):44-50. PubMed 7791257 ↗
  • Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jun;184(7):1496-501; discussion 1501-3. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.114868. PubMed 11408873 ↗
  • Stepp KJ, Barber MD, Yoo EH, Whiteside JL, Paraiso MF, Walters MD. Incidence of perioperative complications of urogynecologic surgery in elderly women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 May;192(5):1630-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.026. PubMed 15902169 ↗
  • Tabata T, Yamawaki T, Ida M, Nishimura K, Nose Y, Yabana T. Clinical value of dilatation and curettage for abnormal uterine bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2001 Jan;264(4):174-6. doi: 10.1007/s004040000100. PubMed 11205702 ↗
  • Hornemann A, Kamischke A, Luedders DW, Beyer DA, Diedrich K, Bohlmann MK. Advanced age is a risk factor for higher grade perineal lacerations during delivery in nulliparous women. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010 Jan;281(1):59-64. doi: 10.1007/s00404-009-1063-7. Epub 2009 Mar 31. PubMed 19333610 ↗
  • Sabbagh R, Mandron E, Piussan J, Brychaert PE, Tu le M. Long-term anatomical and functional results of laparoscopic promontofixation for pelvic organ prolapse. BJU Int. 2010 Sep;106(6):861-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09173.x. Epub 2010 Jan 19. PubMed 20089111 ↗
  • Gerten KA, Markland AD, Lloyd LK, Richter HE. Prolapse and incontinence surgery in older women. J Urol. 2008 Jun;179(6):2111-8. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.089. PubMed 18423726 ↗
  • Visco AG, Wei JT, McClure LA, Handa VL, Nygaard IE; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Effects of examination technique modifications on pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) results. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003 Jun;14(2):136-40. doi: 10.1007/s00192-002-1030-3. Epub 2003 Mar 28. Erratum In: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003 Dec;14(6):437-8. PubMed 12851759 ↗
  • Giuly J, Cravello L, D'Ercole C, Roger V, Porcu G, Blanc B. [Richter's spinofixation in vaginal prolapse]. Chirurgie. 1997;122(7):430-4. French. PubMed 9588065 ↗
  • Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. PubMed 15273542 ↗
  • Murphy M, Sternschuss G, Haff R, van Raalte H, Saltz S, Lucente V. Quality of life and surgical satisfaction after vaginal reconstructive vs obliterative surgery for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;198(5):573.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.036. PubMed 18455537 ↗
  • King SW, Jefferis H, Jackson S, Marfin AG, Price N. Laparoscopic uterovaginal prolapse surgery in the elderly: feasibility and outcomes. Gynecol Surg. 2017;14(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s10397-017-1000-x. Epub 2017 Apr 11. PubMed 28479877 ↗
  • Sung VW, Weitzen S, Sokol ER, Rardin CR, Myers DL. Effect of patient age on increasing morbidity and mortality following urogynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 May;194(5):1411-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.050. PubMed 16647926 ↗
  • Leung JM, Dzankic S. Relative importance of preoperative health status versus intraoperative factors in predicting postoperative adverse outcomes in geriatric surgical patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001 Aug;49(8):1080-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49212.x. PubMed 11555070 ↗
  • Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 1;10(10):CD012376. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376. PubMed 27696355 ↗
  • Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, McKee A, Kehlet H, van Zundert A, Sage D, Futter M, Saville G, Clark T, MacMahon S. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials. BMJ. 2000 Dec 16;321(7275):1493. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7275.1493. PubMed 11118174 ↗
  • Greer JA, Northington GM, Harvie HS, Segal S, Johnson JC, Arya LA. Functional status and postoperative morbidity in older women with prolapse. J Urol. 2013 Sep;190(3):948-52. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.004. Epub 2013 Mar 6. PubMed 23473899 ↗
  • Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, Vallancien G. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009 May;55(5):1089-103. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.048. Epub 2009 Feb 4. PubMed 19201521 ↗
  • Keys T, Campeau L, Badlani G. Synthetic mesh in the surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse: current status and future directions. Urology. 2012 Aug;80(2):237-43. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.008. Epub 2012 May 23. PubMed 22626575 ↗
  • Belot F, Collinet P, Debodinance P, Ha Duc E, Lucot JP, Cosson M. [Risk factors for prosthesis exposure in treatment of genital prolapse via the vaginal approach]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005 Dec;33(12):970-4. doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2005.10.023. French. PubMed 16324871 ↗
  • Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O'Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;204(4):360.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016. PubMed 21306698 ↗
  • Agarwala N, Hasiak N, Shade M. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with Gynemesh as graft material--experience and results. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007 Sep-Oct;14(5):577-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2007.03.005. PubMed 17848318 ↗
  • Su TH, Lau HH, Huang WC, Hsieh CH, Chang RC, Su CH. Single-incision mesh repair versus traditional native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: results of a cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Jul;25(7):901-8. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2294-5. Epub 2014 Jan 28. PubMed 24469775 ↗
  • Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, Heinonen PK. Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Sep;203(3):235.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.03.030. Epub 2010 May 21. PubMed 20494332 ↗
  • Moore RD, Miklos JR. Vaginal repair of cystocele with anterior wall mesh via transobturator route: efficacy and complications with up to 3-year followup. Adv Urol. 2009;2009:743831. doi: 10.1155/2009/743831. Epub 2009 Aug 24. PubMed 19710939 ↗
  • Lee U, Wolff EM, Kobashi KC. Native tissue repairs in anterior vaginal prolapse surgery: examining definitions of surgical success in the mesh era. Curr Opin Urol. 2012 Jul;22(4):265-70. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835459bb. PubMed 22617056 ↗
  • Tibi B, Vincens E, Durand M, Bentellis I, Salet-Lizee D, Kane A, Gadonneix P, Severac F, Ahallal Y, Chevallier D, Villet R. Comparison of different surgical techniques for pelvic floor repair in elderly women: a multi-institutional study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Apr;299(4):1007-1013. doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05076-1. Epub 2019 Feb 20. PubMed 30788571 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — CFU, Publication at the European Journal in February 2018

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03445442
Lead sponsor
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 26, 2018
Start date
Jan 1, 2011
Primary completion
Dec 1, 2012
Completion
Apr 5, 2017
Last update
Mar 22, 2018

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2018. 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