search
Back to results

Effectiveness Prolift+M Versus Conventional Vaginal Prolapse Surgery (VROUW2)

Primary Purpose

Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Cystocele, Rectocele

Status
Unknown status
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Netherlands
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Prolift + M
conventional vaginal prolapse surgery
Sponsored by
Radboud University Medical Center
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Pelvic Organ Prolapse focused on measuring recurrent pelvic organ prolapse, mesh

Eligibility Criteria

45 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)FemaleDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Subject has a anterior and/or posterior prolapse POP-Q stage II or more. Subjects with a middle compartment prolapse may only be included if there is a co-existing anterior or posterior defect which needs surgical correction.
  • Subject has agreed to undergo implantation of Prolift+MTM or fascial plication
  • Subject is willing to return for follow-up evaluation and QoL questionnaires completion at 6weeks, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months follow-ups.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Pregnancy
  • Age < 45 years
  • Subject has had a previous surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. A previous mid-urethral sling procedure is not an exclusion criterion.
  • Have current urinary tract or vaginal infections
  • Have blood coagulation disorders
  • Have a compromised immune system or any other conditions that would compromise healing
  • Are unwilling or unable to return for evaluation
  • Previous irradiation
  • Presence of any malignancy

Sites / Locations

  • Gelre ziekenhuizen Apeldoorn
  • Reinier de Graaf Group
  • UMC St Radboud
  • Zaans Medisch Centre
  • Isala clinics

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Active Comparator

Arm Label

prolift + m

conventional vaginal prolapse surgery

Arm Description

surgery with mesh (prolift+M)

conventional vaginal prolapse surgery; anterior colporrhaphy or posterior colporrhaphy or spinal ligament fixation

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

objective anatomic success (POPQ stage <2)
clinical investigation including POPQ

Secondary Outcome Measures

subjective improvement in quality of life
Questionnaires; Euroqol5D, PGI-I, UDI, DDI and PFDI20
sexual function/dysfunction
PISQ-12, BESAQ
complications
clinical investigation
recovery
Recovery Index 10
cost-effectiveness
Costs of the strategies Tension free Vaginal mesh+Monocryl as well as standard vaginal prolapse surgery will be estimated using direct medical costs based on the actual costs of the surgery, personnel, material costs and costs for surgery due to recurrence or complications.

Full Information

First Posted
January 27, 2012
Last Updated
February 5, 2015
Sponsor
Radboud University Medical Center
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT02231099
Brief Title
Effectiveness Prolift+M Versus Conventional Vaginal Prolapse Surgery
Acronym
VROUW2
Official Title
A Prospective and Comparative Study of the (Cost)Effectiveness Preformance of Tension Free Vaginal Mesh Plus Monocryl (Prolift+M) Versus Conventional Vaginal Prolaps Surgery in Primary Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
February 2015
Overall Recruitment Status
Unknown status
Study Start Date
January 2011 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
September 2015 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
September 2015 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Radboud University Medical Center

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
Pelvic organ prolapse is highly prevalent in the female population. The recurrence rate of pelvic organ prolapse after surgical treatment is high. This emphasizes the clinical need for improvement of the surgical techniques currently used. Placement of a mesh aims at reducing the recurrence rate. In this study the investigators compare the effectiveness of the Tension free Vaginal mesh + Monocryl with standard vaginal prolapse surgery without mesh.
Detailed Description
Rationale: Pelvic organ prolapse is highly prevalent in the female population. The incidence of pelvic organ prolapse increases with age, so the longer life expectancy of women may cause pelvic organ prolapse to become an even more major health issue. The recurrence rate of pelvic organ prolapse after surgical treatment is high. The recurrence rate of the anterior vaginal wall prolapse after an anterior colporrhaphy is 30%-45%. The posterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence rate after a posterior colporrhaphy is 12-25%. This emphasizes the clinical need for improvement of the surgical techniques currently used. Placement of a mesh aims at reducing the recurrence rate (2-11%). Objective: To compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of the Tension free Vaginal Mesh + Monocryl (Prolift+M) with the standard vaginal prolapse surgery (i.e. fascial placation). A secondary objective is to track the post-operative and long-term complications of both procedures. A third objective is to evaluate recovery after surgery. Study design: a prospective, multicentre, randomized, non-blinded study between Tension free Vaginal Mesh + Monocryl (Prolift+MTM) and standard vaginal prolapse surgery (i.e. fascial placation). Study population: women with a primary pelvic organ prolapse of the anterior and/or posterior compartment POP stage II or more, in the age of 45 years or older. Intervention (if applicable): Prolapse surgery with tension free vaginal mesh + Monocryl (Prolift + M) versus conventional vaginal prolapse surgery. Main study parameters/endpoints: The main outcome is the percentage of patients with objective anatomical success (POP stage < 2) after 24 months. As secondary outcome the subjective improvement in quality of life will be measured by generic (EQ-5D,PGI-I) and disease-specific (UDI, DDI, IIQ and PFDI20) quality of life instrument. Sexual functioning will be measured by generic (FSFI) and disease specific (PISQ12) questionnaires. Complications will be monitored with special notice for pain (Mc Gill pain questionnaire) Recovery will be measured with the Recovery index 10. The economical endpoint is short term (2 year) incremental cost-effectiveness in terms of costs per additional year free of prolapse and costs per QALY gained. Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: Burden associated with participation: complete a disease specific Quality of life questionnaire 4 times, complete a recovery index questionnaire 3 times. Visit the hospital 4 times after the surgery (this is 2 times more often than patients not participating in the study). Since subjects are selected from subjects already agreeing to complete a surgical procedure, the additional risks of participation in this study are low. These risks include tissue erosion (vaginal, rectal or bladder), vaginal pain/dyspareunia.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Cystocele, Rectocele, Uterine Prolapse
Keywords
recurrent pelvic organ prolapse, mesh

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
176 (Anticipated)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
prolift + m
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
surgery with mesh (prolift+M)
Arm Title
conventional vaginal prolapse surgery
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
conventional vaginal prolapse surgery; anterior colporrhaphy or posterior colporrhaphy or spinal ligament fixation
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Prolift + M
Intervention Description
prolapse surgery with mesh
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
conventional vaginal prolapse surgery
Other Intervention Name(s)
anterior colporrhaphy, posterior colporrhaphy
Intervention Description
conventional vaginal prolapse surgery;anterior colporrhaphy, posterior colporrhaphy
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
objective anatomic success (POPQ stage <2)
Description
clinical investigation including POPQ
Time Frame
24 months
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
subjective improvement in quality of life
Description
Questionnaires; Euroqol5D, PGI-I, UDI, DDI and PFDI20
Time Frame
24 months
Title
sexual function/dysfunction
Description
PISQ-12, BESAQ
Time Frame
24 months
Title
complications
Description
clinical investigation
Time Frame
24 months
Title
recovery
Description
Recovery Index 10
Time Frame
6 weeks
Title
cost-effectiveness
Description
Costs of the strategies Tension free Vaginal mesh+Monocryl as well as standard vaginal prolapse surgery will be estimated using direct medical costs based on the actual costs of the surgery, personnel, material costs and costs for surgery due to recurrence or complications.
Time Frame
24 months

10. Eligibility

Sex
Female
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
45 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Subject has a anterior and/or posterior prolapse POP-Q stage II or more. Subjects with a middle compartment prolapse may only be included if there is a co-existing anterior or posterior defect which needs surgical correction. Subject has agreed to undergo implantation of Prolift+MTM or fascial plication Subject is willing to return for follow-up evaluation and QoL questionnaires completion at 6weeks, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months follow-ups. Exclusion Criteria: Pregnancy Age < 45 years Subject has had a previous surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. A previous mid-urethral sling procedure is not an exclusion criterion. Have current urinary tract or vaginal infections Have blood coagulation disorders Have a compromised immune system or any other conditions that would compromise healing Are unwilling or unable to return for evaluation Previous irradiation Presence of any malignancy
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Mariella IJ Withagen, MD, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
Radboud Medical Center
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Gelre ziekenhuizen Apeldoorn
City
Apeldoorn
Country
Netherlands
Facility Name
Reinier de Graaf Group
City
Delft
ZIP/Postal Code
2625 AD
Country
Netherlands
Facility Name
UMC St Radboud
City
Nijmegen
ZIP/Postal Code
6500 HB
Country
Netherlands
Facility Name
Zaans Medisch Centre
City
Zaandam
ZIP/Postal Code
1500 EE
Country
Netherlands
Facility Name
Isala clinics
City
Zwolle
ZIP/Postal Code
8025 AB
Country
Netherlands

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Learn more about this trial

Effectiveness Prolift+M Versus Conventional Vaginal Prolapse Surgery

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs