Skip to content

To compare two laparoscopic surgeries for uterine or vault prolapse correction

Comparison of Laparoscopic Pectopexy with the standard Laparoscopic Sacropexy for Apical Prolapse: An exploratory randomized controlled trial. - Laparoscopic pectopexy

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2021/02/031023
Enrollment
56
Registered
2021-02-04
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2021-11-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: N813- Complete uterovaginal prolapse

Interventions

Intervention1: laparoscopic pectopexy: compare laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy in women with symptomatic apical prolapse (POP-Q stage II). Control Intervention1: lapar

Sponsors

All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Rishikesh
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Women with symptomatic apical prolapse (uterovaginal prolapse or vaginal vault prolapse) of stage 2 or greater according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. 2. Women who agree to participate in the trial and to comply with the protocol and give their written consent for the same. 3. Patients who are able to communicate by telephone and answer questions. 4. Adequate cardio respiratory, renal and liver functions and who will be fit to undergo surgery.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Prior surgeries for vaginal prolapse correction 2. Active pelvic inflammatory disease 3. Current pregnancy 4. Any contraindications against one of the surgical methods applied in the study, hence making the randomization impossible (e.g. previously identified or strongly suspected massive adhesions between sigmoid colon and presacral peritoneum. 5. History of premalignant or malignant diseases of uterus, cervix or adnexa 6. Any contraindication for laparoscopic surgery 7. Patient unfit for anaesthesia 8. Patient not willing to comply with the protocol

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Average placement of mesh timeTimepoint: 1 year 6 month

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
operation time, blood loss, occurrence of major complications. Hemoglobin decline, Pain (VAS score), duration of hospital stay, onset of bowel movements, episodes of constipation, urinary retention or urgency, de novo urinary incontinence (urge or stress urinary incontinence), urinary tract infections, occurrence of de novo anterior and lateral defect, de novo cystocele, de novo rectocele, dyspareunia, mesh erosion, relapse of apical prolapse and satisfaction rate. Timepoint: 1 year 6 month

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Kanhu Charan Dash

AIIMS RISHIKESH

kavita.kh27@gmail.com9690396908

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026