Avaulta Versus Anterior Repair
Recruitment status was: Not yet recruiting
|First Received Date ICMJE||February 22, 2008|
|Last Updated Date||February 29, 2008|
|Start Date ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Primary Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||Does Avaulta Plus reduce the recurrence rate defined as a POP-Q Aa <-2 cm at follow-up after 1 yr. [ Time Frame: one year ]|
|Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE||Same as current|
|Change History||No Changes Posted|
|Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Current Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Original Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Brief Title ICMJE||Avaulta Versus Anterior Repair|
|Official Title ICMJE||The Use of Avaulta Plus for Anterior Repair. A Multicenter Randomised Prospective Controlled Study|
Vaginal prolapse is a well-known disease and is observed in approximately 11% of all postmenopausal women and tending to increase with age. Consequently, many surgical procedures have been developed in order to ensure sufficient support for the bladder, rectum or vaginal vault depending on the site of the defect. However, many procedures are associated with a high recurrence rate up to 40 % even within one to two years after the surgical procedure.
Due to the high recurrence rate new methods include the use of mesh, either biologically or synthetic. The latter is a permanent implant and therefore theoretically may result in a long-lasting anatomically correct position of the prolapse.
Although the recurrence rate may be lower using a mesh such surgical procedures may be associated with adverse events such as erosions of the vaginal mucosa. Others have observed shrinkage of the vaginal mucosa. However, in these studies large prolene mesh have been used. In contrast the recurrence rate is lowered up to 25%.
The above-mentioned advantage of synthetic mesh is however, mostly based on few non-randomised studies. We therefore find it of importance to evaluate whether a surgical procedure using a mesh implant is superior to conventional surgical techniques. The present study is a clinical controlled study where patients with anterior vaginal prolapse are randomised to either a mesh technique or a standard anterior procedure.
The present study includes only two more visits at the outpatient clinic after the surgical procedure. Furthermore the patients have to fulfil questionnaires regarding urinary and faecal leakage and sexual habits.
Any participation in the study is totally voluntary and the patient may at any time withdraw herself. In any case the patient will receive our standard treatment.
The study is performed in all the Scandinavian countries.
|Detailed Description||Not Provided|
|Study Type ICMJE||Interventional|
|Study Phase||Not Provided|
|Study Design ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Condition ICMJE||Vaginal Prolapse|
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
|Recruitment Status ICMJE||Unknown status|
|Enrollment ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Primary Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Eligibility Criteria ICMJE||
|Ages||18 Years and older (Adult, Senior)|
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers||No|
|Contacts ICMJE||Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects|
|Listed Location Countries ICMJE||Denmark|
|Removed Location Countries|
|NCT Number ICMJE||NCT00627549|
|Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE||Avaulta 17431|
|Has Data Monitoring Committee||Not Provided|
|U.S. FDA-regulated Product||Not Provided|
|IPD Sharing Statement||Not Provided|
|Responsible Party||Not Provided|
|Study Sponsor ICMJE||Zealand University Hospital|
|Collaborators ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Investigators ICMJE||Not Provided|
|PRS Account||Zealand University Hospital|
|Verification Date||February 2008|
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP