Skip to content

Study Comparing Transobturator Cystocele vs. Anterior Vaginal RepairS

Study Comparing Transobturator Cystocele vs. Anterior Vaginal RepairS

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05602246
Acronym
STARS
Enrollment
592
Registered
2022-11-02
Start date
2022-12-01
Completion date
2034-11-01
Last updated
2026-03-19

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

Conditions

Cystocele, Cystocele and Incomplete Uterovaginal Prolapse, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse, Quality of life, TOCR, Anterior vaginal wall repair, Transobturator cystocele repair

Brief summary

Surgical correction of the prolapse in the anterior compartment remains one of the major challenges in urogynecology. Paravaginal defect in level II of vaginal fixation results in the majority of cystoceles. Clinically, these defects are often combined and/or may be bilateral. Hence, careful assessment and individualized planning of the surgical procedure is essential to optimize cystocele repair outcome. Several surgical techniques and approaches have been used for cystocele repair. After the ban on transvaginal meshes, the interest in native tissue repair has risen. Paravaginal defect repair is an effective surgery for paravaginal defect reconstruction. There is a current trend to utilize transvaginal surgery instead of more invasive transabdominal surgery. A novel method of transvaginal paravaginal defect repair - TOCR (transobturator cystocele repair) was suggested. The principle objective of the present trial is to compare its efficacy and safety to preexisting method of native tissue cystocele repair.

Detailed description

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has a negative impact on the quality of life of affected women and anterior compartment defects remain the most challenging to repair. It was reported that a women has almost a 1 in 5 risk of needing any kind of POP surgery in her lifetime, with anterior wall repair accounting for 40.6% of all of these. Depending on the structures affected, cystocele can be secondary to defects at: A) Level I vaginal support, provided by the uterosacral and cardinal ligaments or B) Level II vaginal support, mainly provided by the pubocervical fascia. Level II defects can be midline or lateral (paravaginal) depending on whether the fascia is weak at the midline or detached from its lateral attachment to the arcus tendineus fasciae pelvis (ATFP). Clinically, these defects are often combined and/or may be bilateral. Hence, careful assessment and individualized planning of the surgical procedure is essential to optimize cystocele repair outcome. Several surgical techniques and approaches have been used for cystocele repair. These involve native tissue and the use of mesh implanted transvaginally and / or transabdominally.The mainstay for the vaginal repair of a level I defects is to anchor the uterine cervix or vaginal vault to the sacrospinous or the anterior longitudinal ligaments. However, proper restoration of a level II defect is more complex. Although, a classical anterior colporrhaphy might be suitable to correct an isolated midline weakness in the endopelvic fascia, it is suboptimal, on its own, for the repair an associated lateral defect, which is a common association. Indeed, De Lancey reported that paravaginal defects (PVDs) were diagnosed in 89% of women undergoing surgery for cystocele and stress urinary incontinence. Although a variety of techniques for paravaginal defect repair (PVDR) have been suggested, several of these are now not feasible in many countries following the FDA's ban on transvaginal mesh manufacture, sale and distribution. Therefore, currently there are attempts to utilize minimally invasive approaches and modern devices in PVDR native tissue repair. Applying this principle, e.g. Capio Suture Capturing Device (Boston Scientific) has been proposed to re-attach the vagina to the ATFP using two to four non-absorbable sutures. However, based on anatomical observation, the ATFP is thin its superior part and thicker inferiorly. This is an issue that might affect the reliability of identifying and ensuring a secure anchorage to the ATFP when solely using a transvaginal route. Recently a novel. Technique of PVDR, called transobturator cystocele repair has been published. However, as the technique was described recently, no follow-up data have been reported to support its practice. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to compare the novel TOCR and standard anterior colporrhaphy (AR) regarding their safety, efficacy and quality-of-life improvement in a one-year follow-up.

Interventions

PROCEDURETransobturator cystocele repair

Novel transvaginal surgical reconstruction of anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse.

The traditional transvaginal surgery for cystocele treatment used as a comparator in the study

Sponsors

Charles University, Czech Republic
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Randomized controlled trial

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

* (at least) 2nd stage prolapse of the anterior compartment (Ba ≥ -1) * Age ≥ 50 years * Symptom bulge * Ability to speak Czech or English

Exclusion criteria

* Malignancy

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Anatomic failure1 yearAnterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse stage ≥ 2( i.e. pelvic organ prolpase quantification (POPQ) point Ba, or C of \> -1)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Composite surgery failure1 yearComposite measure requiring at least one from the following: 1. anatomic failure (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point Ba, Bp, or C of \> 0), 2. subjective failure (presence of bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms), or 3. pessary or surgical retreatment for pelvic organ prolapse
2-year composite surgery failure2 yearsComposite measure requiring at least one from the following: 1. anatomic failure (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point Ba, Bp, or C of \> 0), 2. subjective failure (presence of bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms), or 3. pessary or surgical retreatment for pelvic organ prolapse
2-year anatomic failure2 yearsAnterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse stage ≥ 2( i.e. POPQ point Ba, or C of \> -1)
Complication rate1 yearNumber of complications Dindo-Clavien Grade \> 2
Pain after the surgeryPostoperative day 14visual analog scale (VAS) ≥ 3 (range 0-10, higher is worse)
Subjective perception of improvement1 yearPatient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) ≤ 2 (range 1-7, higher is worse)
2-year subjective perception of improvement2 yearsPGI-I ≤ 2 (range 1-7, higher is worse)
Patient satisfaction1 yearSubjectively assessed by the patient on a scale 0 - 100%. Satisfaction with the surgery ≥ 80 %.
De novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI)1 yearAny new stress leaks of urine reported by the patient ≥ once a week, or treatment
De novo overactive bladder (OAB)1 yearde novo OAB ≥ once a week, or treatment
Change in quality of life - urinary incontience1 yearassessed by Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6) score, range 0-100, higher is worse
Change in quality of life - prolapse bother1 yearassessed by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI-6) score, range 0-100, higher is worse
Change in quality of life - anorectal problems1 yearassessed by Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) score,range 0-100, higher is worse.
Change in quality of sexual life1 yearassessed by Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR) single summary score in sexually active women (higher is better)
Change in severity of urinary incontinence1 yearassessed by International Consultation of Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) score (0-21, higher is worse)

Countries

Czechia, Slovakia

Contacts

CONTACTVladimir Kalis, prof. MD PhD
kalisv@fnplzen.cz+420377105228
CONTACTZdenek Rusavy, assoc. prof. MD PhD
rusavyz@fnplzen.cz+420377105440
STUDY_CHAIRVladimir Kalis, prof. MD PhD

Faculty of Medicine in Plzen, Charles University

STUDY_DIRECTORKhaled MK Ismail, MBBCh, MSc, MD, PhD, FRCOG

Faculty of Medicine in Plzen, Charles University

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORZdenek Rusavy, assoc. prof. MD PhD

Faculty of Medicine in Plzen, Charles University

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 20, 2026