An interventional study of Sacral Hysteropexy and sacrospinous Hysteropexy in Uterine Prolapse, sponsored by Ain Shams Maternity Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Egypt. Open to female participants aged 20 Years to 40 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-12-03.
Sponsored by Ain Shams Maternity Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
This study will compare the vaginal versus the abdominal approach for the management of uterine prolapse
this study compares The unilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy with prolene sutures versus the abdominal sacral hysteropexy using Mersilene suture for the management of uterine prolapse
Exclusion Criteria:
Abdominal approach for uterine suspension
Procedure: Sacral Hysteropexy
Transvaginal approach for uterine suspension
Procedure: sacrospinous Hysteropexy
Abdominal approach for uterine suspension
Transvaginal approach for uterine suspension
Pelvic organ prolapse quantification system
compare Pelvic organ prolapse quantification system between groups
Time frame: 3 month
Perioperative data
operative time
Time frame: 1 day
operative details
blood loss
Time frame: 1 day
Plan to share: Undecided
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
Ain Shams Maternity Hospital