Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Carlos III Health Institute | OTHER_GOV |
| Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spain | OTHER_GOV |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This is a prospective, randomized, multicenter, non-inferiority trial including women with stage II-IV apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP), classified according to the POP-Q system. Participants will be randomized into two groups:
Group A: laparoscopic colposacropexy with posterior mesh fixation to the levator ani muscle.
Group B: laparoscopic colposacropexy with posterior mesh fixation to the vaginal cuff/cervix, without dissection of the rectovaginal space.
The objective of the study is to determine whether a simplified colposacropexy technique is non-inferior to the standard procedure in terms of anatomical and functional outcomes.
The primary outcome is anatomical success, defined as a postoperative POP-Q stage 0-I. Secondary outcomes include functional status and sexual function, evaluated using the PFDI-20 and PISQ-12 questionnaires. Data on prolapse anatomy, related symptoms, and sexual function will be collected at baseline and during follow-up visits at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
This study is supported by a national health research grant from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spain.
This study is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, evaluator-blinded, non-inferiority clinical trial. The null hypothesis is that colposacropexy with posterior mesh fixation to the vaginal vault (without rectovaginal dissection) is associated with an anatomical and/or functional failure rate that is equal to or more than 15% higher than colposacropexy with posterior mesh fixation to the levator ani muscle (deep rectovaginal dissection). A non-inferiority margin of 15% has been selected because smaller differences are not considered clinically relevant.
With this project, the investigators aim to evaluate the outcomes of a simplified colposacropexy technique that avoids dissection of the rectovaginal space and deep pelvic mesh fixation. Demonstrating non-inferiority would imply rejecting the null hypothesis.
The procedure is indicated for women with stage II-IV uterine or vault prolapse according to the POP-Q classification, with or without associated anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall defects. The decision to perform surgery will be made by the gynecologists, independent of trial participation, to ensure that study enrollment does not influence standard surgical indications. Exclusion criteria include previous abdominal or vaginal mesh prolapse reconstructive surgery or POP-Q stage I or asymptomatic prolapse.
Sample size calculations assume a 91% success rate for the standardized procedure (Lee 2014), a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a 95% confidence interval, and 80% statistical power. A total of 166 patients (83 per group) are required, accounting for a 10% dropout rate.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
The vesicovaginal dissection and exposure of the sacral promontory will be performed identically in both groups. A predesigned polypropylene mesh will be used, consisting of:
Fixation of the mesh to the vagina, sacral promontory, and (when applicable) the levator ani muscle will be performed using nitinol helical mechanical sutures (Spire'it). At the vesicovaginal space, the mesh will be anchored at the anatomical depth corresponding to the vesical neck level in both groups.
The only difference between groups involves the posterior compartment dissection and mesh fixation:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A: Standard laparoscopic colposacropexy | Active Comparator | The procedure is based on the laparoscopic colposacropexy technique described by Wattiez in 2001 (Clermont-Ferrand group). The standard technique includes dissection of the sacral promontory, the vesicovaginal space, and the rectovaginal space with bilateral pararectal fossae. In the vesicovaginal space, the mesh is anchored deeply at the level of the vesical neck, and posteriorly, in the rectovaginal and pararectal spaces, at the level of the levator ani muscle. |
|
| Group B: Simplified laparoscopic colposacropexy | Experimental | The simplified technique includes dissection of the sacral promontory and the vesicovaginal space, but does not involve dissection of the rectovaginal space or the pararectal fossae. In this technique, the posterior mesh is anchored to the posterior aspect of the vaginal vault or cervix. Mesh fixation at the sacral promontory and in the vesicovaginal space is performed within the same anatomical boundaries as in the standard technique. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopic colposacropexy with levator ani muscle mesh fixation | Procedure | The standard technique includes dissection of the rectovaginal space and bilateral mesh fixation to the levator ani muscle at the deep limit of the pararectal fossae dissection. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Difference in anatomical success rate between simplified (Group B) and standard (Group A) laparoscopic colposacropexy. | Proportion of participants achieving anatomical success, defined as postoperative POP-Q stage 0-I. The primary analysis will test non-inferiority of the simplified technique (Group B) versus the standard technique (Group A). Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for (Success_B - Success_A) is greater than 15% (non-inferiority margin = 15%). POP-Q assessment will be performed using standardized technique by an evaluator blinded to surgical assignment. | 12 months after surgery |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Difference in functional outcomes between simplified (Group B) and standard (Group A) laparoscopic colposacropexy. | Functional outcomes will be assessed by validated questionnaire: Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20). Scores will be compared between groups to evaluate whether the simplified technique results in inferior functional outcomes compared with the standard technique in women with stage II-IV apical prolapse. PFDI-20 consists of 20 items divided into three subdomains:
|
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Only female participants are eligible, as the condition under study (apical pelvic organ prolapse) occurs exclusively in women.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau | Barcelona | Barcelona | Spain | |||
| Hospital Universitari Dexeus |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40521574 | Background | Kuroda K, Hamamoto K, Kawamura K, Masunaga A, Horiguchi A, Ito K. Device Selection Contributes to Operative Time Reduction in Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2025 Mar 15;14(2):157-164. doi: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_155_23. eCollection 2025 Apr-Jun. | |
| 28435129 | Background | Schaub M, Lecointre L, Faller E, Boisrame T, Baldauf JJ, Wattiez A, Akladios CY. Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy: The "6-Points" Technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017 Nov-Dec;24(7):1081-1082. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.04.003. Epub 2017 Apr 18. |
Not provided
Not provided
There are no current plans to share individual participant data (IPD). Data use is restricted to the investigators involved in this project, according to the informed consent provided by participants and ethical committee approval.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Group A: Laparoscopic colposacropexy with posterior mesh fixation to the levator ani muscle (standard technique).
Group B: Laparoscopic colposacropexy with posterior mesh fixation to the vaginal cuff or cervix, without rectovaginal space dissection (simplified technique).
Not provided
Not provided
Due to the nature of the surgical intervention, a double-blind design is not feasible. However, the assessment of anatomical and functional outcomes during follow-up will be performed by an evaluator who is blinded to the type of surgical technique used.
| Simplified modification of laparoscopic colposacropexy | Procedure | Rectovaginal dissection is avoided, and the mesh is anchored to the posterior aspect of the cervix or vaginal vault rather than to the levator ani muscle, representing the specific modification from the standard technique. |
|
| 12 months after surgery |
| Difference in sexual outcomes between simplified (Group B) and standard (Group A) laparoscopic colposacropexy. | Sexual outcomes will be assessed by validated questionnaire: Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12). Scores will be compared between groups to evaluate whether the simplified technique results in inferior sexual outcomes compared with the standard technique in women with stage II-IV apical prolapse. The PISQ-12 is a validated, condition-specific questionnaire used to assess sexual function in women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. It consists of 12 items covering three domains:
| 12 months after surgery |
| Barcelona |
| Barcelona |
| Spain |
| Hospital Universitari d'Igualada | Igualada | Barcelona | Spain |
| Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofia | San Sebastián de los Reyes | Madrid | Spain |
| Hospital General Universitario de Valencia | Valencia | Valencia | Spain |
| Hospital Clinico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca | Murcia | Spain |
| 29987345 | Background | Bataller E, Ros C, Angles S, Gallego M, Espuna-Pons M, Carmona F. Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2019 Apr;30(4):545-555. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3702-7. Epub 2018 Jul 9. |
| 30798918 | Background | Habib N, Centini G, Pizzoferrato AC, Bui C, Argay I, Bader G. Laparoscopic promontofixation: Where to stop the anterior dissection? Med Hypotheses. 2019 Mar;124:60-63. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2019.02.006. Epub 2019 Feb 2. |
| 30076597 | Background | Cosma S, Petruzzelli P, Chiado Fiorio Tin M, Parisi S, Olearo E, Fassio F, Zizzo R, Danese S, Benedetto C. Simplified laparoscopic sacropexy avoiding deep vaginal dissection. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Nov;143(2):239-245. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12632. Epub 2018 Aug 24. |
| 30024069 | Background | Moroni RM, Juliato CRT, Cosson M, Giraudet G, Brito LGO. Does sacrocolpopexy present heterogeneity in its surgical technique? A systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018 Nov;37(8):2335-2345. doi: 10.1002/nau.23764. Epub 2018 Jul 19. |
| 31891897 | Background | Gluck O, Blaganje M, Veit-Rubin N, Phillips C, Deprest J, O'reilly B, But I, Moore R, Jeffery S, Haddad JM, Deval B. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive literature review on current practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Feb;245:94-101. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.12.029. Epub 2019 Dec 26. |
| 27566224 | Background | Costantini E, Brubaker L, Cervigni M, Matthews CA, O'Reilly BA, Rizk D, Giannitsas K, Maher CF. Sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based review and recommendations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Oct;205:60-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.503. Epub 2016 Aug 3. |
| 37493538 | Background | Maher C, Yeung E, Haya N, Christmann-Schmid C, Mowat A, Chen Z, Baessler K. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jul 26;7(7):CD012376. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376.pub2. |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011391 | Prolapse |
| D056887 | Pelvic Organ Prolapse |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D020763 | Pathological Conditions, Anatomical |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
Not provided
Not provided