Skip to content

Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy and Sacropexy Versus Hysteropexy Study

Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy and Sacropexy Compared to Uterus Conserving Hysteropexy: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02345954
Acronym
HysPex
Enrollment
100
Registered
2015-01-26
Start date
2015-01-31
Completion date
2023-10-31
Last updated
2020-09-02

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

Conditions

Uterus Prolapse

Keywords

Uterus Prolapse, Laparoscopic Sacropexy, Laparoscopic Hysteropexy

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the operative, anatomic functional outcome as well as the subjective outcome of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy and sacropexy compared to laparoscopic hysteropexy (conserving the uterus). The investigators expect that both laparoscopic procedures are equal in regards to operation time, complication rate, anatomic and functional outcome as well as subjective outcome.

Interventions

PROCEDURELaparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy and Sacropexy

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

PROCEDURELaparoscopic Hysteropexy

Laparoscopic hysteropexy

Sponsors

Kantonsspital Aarau
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients older than 18 years * Symptomatic uterus prolapse (uterus \< 300g) * Patient able to sign the informed consent and to fulfil the follow up visits

Exclusion criteria

* Indication: Pathologies of the uterus (postmen. bleeding, high endometrium at ultrasound (\>5 mm), abnormal PAP smear in the last 5 years, bleeding anomalies in premenopausal patients * General medical contraindications to a surgical operation * tumor/ malignant disease * bacterial infection at time of surgery * drug or medication abuse at time or just before surfer * Disease which would make a correct assessment of the patient impossible (e.g. psychiatric condition) * Known hypersensitivity to the implanted materials * Immaturity, inability to answer/understand questions * Planned pregnancy * Participation to other studies (drugs or medical techniques) which could influence the results of this study

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Operation timeexpected average of 150 minutesComparison of operation time in the 2 arms of the study

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Duration of anaesthesiaexpected average of 200 minutes
IUGA Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q)8 weeks before surgical intervention and at follow up 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months after intervention
Intra- and postoperative complication rate1 year
Quality of Life8 weeks before surgical intervention and at follow up 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months after interventionEQ-5D-5L questionnaire
Patient satisfaction after surgeryAt follow up 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months after intervention
Bladder and bowel function, Prolapse symptoms, Sexuality8 weeks before surgical intervention and at follow up 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months after interventionAssessed via Pelvic Function Questionnaire

Countries

Switzerland

Contacts

Primary ContactDimitri Sarlos, MD
dimitri.sarlos@ksa.ch+41 838 5065
Backup ContactJean-Jacques Ries, MD
Jean-Jacques.Ries@ksa.ch+41 838 5995

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026