This site became the new on June 19th. Learn more.
Show more Menu IMPORTANT: Listing of a study on this site does not reflect endorsement by the National Institutes of Health. Talk with a trusted healthcare professional before volunteering for a study. Read more... Menu IMPORTANT: Talk with a trusted healthcare professional before volunteering for a study. Read more... Menu
Give us feedback

Performance of Tension Free Vaginal Mesh (Prolift) Versus Conventional Vaginal Prolapse Surgery in Recurrent Prolapse.

The recruitment status of this study is unknown. The completion date has passed and the status has not been verified in more than two years.
Verified June 2008 by Radboud University.
Recruitment status was:  Recruiting
Information provided by:
Radboud University Identifier:
First received: September 5, 2006
Last updated: June 6, 2008
Last verified: June 2008

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem. A lot of women have surgery for prolapse. The recurrence rate op pelvic organ prolapse after surgical treatment is high. Placement of a mesh aims at reducing the recurrence rate, but mesh implants can cause complications.

This study is designed to determine the effectiveness of one type of mesh (tensionfree vaginal mesh; Prolift), compared with the standard prolapse surgery. A secondary objective is to track the complications of both procedures.

Patients with recurrent prolapse after surgery can participate in this study. A total of 194 women will be included. At random 97 patients undergo a standard prolapse operation and 97 patients undergo an operation with the mesh. Evaluation will take place during surgery, at the postoperative visit after six weeks, and after six months and twelve months. Quality of life, degree of vaginal prolapse, subjective effectiveness, safety and incidence of complications will be evaluated.

Condition Intervention
Pelvic Organ Prolapse Procedure: Tensionfree vaginal mesh (Prolift) Procedure: classic vaginal prolapse surgery (fascia plication)

Study Type: Interventional
Study Design: Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: A Prospective and Comparative Study of the Performance of Tension Free Vaginal Mesh (Prolift) Versus Conventional Vaginal Prolapse Surgery in Recurrent Prolapse

Resource links provided by NLM:

Further study details as provided by Radboud University:

Primary Outcome Measures:
  • Prolapse by POPQ, at entry, after 6 months, after 12 months [ Time Frame: at entry, 6 months and 12 months ]

Secondary Outcome Measures:
  • Complications during the procedure, after 6 weeks, after 6 months, after 12 months [ Time Frame: during procedure, after 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months ]
  • Quality of life by standardised questionnaire, at entry, after 6 months, after 12 months [ Time Frame: at entry, after 6 months and 12 months ]
  • prolapse complaints by standardised questionnaires [ Time Frame: at entry, after 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months ]

Estimated Enrollment: 194
Study Start Date: August 2006
Estimated Primary Completion Date: October 2008 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Arms Assigned Interventions
Experimental: 1
Tensionfree vaginal mesh (Prolift)
Procedure: Tensionfree vaginal mesh (Prolift)
surgery with Prolift mesh
Active Comparator: 2
classic vaginal prolapse surgery (fascia plication)
Procedure: classic vaginal prolapse surgery (fascia plication)
classic surgery, fascia plication


Ages Eligible for Study:   Child, Adult, Senior
Sexes Eligible for Study:   Female
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No

Inclusion Criteria:

  • recurrent anterior and/or posterior prolapse POP-Q stage 2 or more
  • patient has agreed to undergo implantation of TVM (prolift) or fascial plication
  • patient is willing to return for follow-up evaluation at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months
  • patient is willing to complete quality of life questionnaires at 6 and 12 months

Exclusion Criteria:

  • patient is or wants to become pregnant
  • patient has had previous synthetic mesh procedure (a previous mid-urethral sling procedure is NOT an exclusion criterion)
  • patient has current urinary tract or vaginal infections
  • patient has a blood coagulation disorder
  • patient has a compromised immune system or any other condition that would compromise healing
  • patient has renal insufficiency and/or upper urinary tract obstruction
  • patient is unwilling or unable to return for evaluation
  • patient has had previous irradiation
  • patient has any malignancy
  • patient has large ovarian cysts of large myoma
  Contacts and Locations
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the Contacts provided below. For general information, see Learn About Clinical Studies.

Please refer to this study by its identifier: NCT00372190

Contact: Mariella ij Withagen, Drs. 0031243614792
Contact: Mark e Vierhout, Prof. Dr. 0031243614728

Gelre ziekenhuizen Recruiting
Apeldoorn, Netherlands
Contact: W. Spaans, dr.   
Principal Investigator: W. Spaans, dr         
Slysis Zorggroep, location Rijnstate Active, not recruiting
Arnhem, Netherlands
Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis Recruiting
Delft, Netherlands
Principal Investigator: A L. Milani, Drs         
Medisch Spectrum Twente Recruiting
Enschede, Netherlands
Contact: E. Everhardt, dr.         
Principal Investigator: E Everhardt, dr.         
Groene Hart Ziekenhuis Recruiting
Gouda, Netherlands
Contact: I van der Wijk, drs         
Principal Investigator: I van der Wijk, drs         
St. Antonius Ziekenhuis Recruiting
Nieuwegein, Netherlands
Principal Investigator: H L Schagen van Leeuwen, Dr         
UMC St Radboud Recruiting
Nijmegen, Netherlands
Principal Investigator: M IJ Withagen, Drs.         
Ikazia Recruiting
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact: J de Leeuw, dr         
Principal Investigator: J de Leeuw, dr         
Refaja Recruiting
Stadskanaal, Netherlands
Contact: H de Wet   
Principal Investigator: H. de Wet         
St. Elisabeth hospital Recruiting
Tilburg, Netherlands
Principal Investigator: H AM Vervest, Dr         
Twee Steden Ziekenhuis Recruiting
Tilburg, Netherlands
Principal Investigator: A MW Broekman, Drs         
Zaans Medisch Centrum Recruiting
Zaandam, Netherlands
Contact: A.F.P. Mulder, drs         
Principal Investigator: A.F.P. Mulder, drs         
Isala klinieken Recruiting
Zwolle, Netherlands
Contact: J den Boon, dr         
Principal Investigator: J den Boon, dr         
Sponsors and Collaborators
Radboud University
Principal Investigator: Mariella ij Withagen, Drs. UMC St Radboud
  More Information

Publications automatically indexed to this study by Identifier (NCT Number):
Responsible Party: M.I.J. Withagen, Radboud University, department of obstetrics and gynaecology Identifier: NCT00372190     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: P0609
Study First Received: September 5, 2006
Last Updated: June 6, 2008

Keywords provided by Radboud University:
Pelvic organ prolapse

Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Uterine Prolapse
Pathological Conditions, Anatomical
Uterine Diseases
Genital Diseases, Female processed this record on June 26, 2017