View clinical trials related to Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
Filter by:To date no study has determined prospectively which technique is superior to prevent recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) after vaginal hysterectomy- a major unmet clinical need. The aim of the study is to determine objective anatomical recurrent prolapse after Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation (SLF) vs McCall.
Pelvic organ prolapse, POP, is a common health problem affecting up to 40% of women. Very little is known about the factors associated with surgical failure. Studies have identified a variety of risk factors: younger age, high body mass index and advanced preoperative prolapse (grade III-IV) have been associated with an increased risk of reoperation in some studies. According to some studies patients had poorer anatomical outcome after traditional repairs but were able to enjoy the same quality of life as after transvaginal mesh surgery or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. The purpose of this study is to assess and compare the efficacy of these three procedures in a randomized controlled trial.
Observatory of Materiovigilance After Surgery of Urinary Incontinence or Prolapse in Women Implantable medical devices (meshes) used in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (genital prolapse, rectal prolapse), or incontinence surgery may be source of severe complications.
Vaginal packing is used routinely following vaginal reconstructive surgery, however, no recommendation regarding vaginal packing after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy exists. Despite little data to support the practice, purported benefits better positioning and fixation of the mesh, improving incorporation of the mesh by its fixation and reduced blood loss. Patients often complain of discomfort associated with the packing or its removal. The aim of this randomized controlled is to compare the subjective impressions of pain and bother in women undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy treated with and without packing. The investigators also aim to assess differences in postoperative bacteriuria, urine retention and hemoglobin levels on day 5 after the surgery and surgery outcome and complications at one year after the surgery in those with and without packing.
Female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is characterized by lack of vaginal support which enables pelvic organs to bulge into the vaginal walls and sometimes protrude through the genital hiatus. POP is more frequent among women who had their uterus removed. We would like to investigate whether suspension of the top of the vagina during remowal of the uterus prevents subsequent POP. The purpose of the PhD project is therefore to describe validity, terminology, and operative performance of used suspension methods during benign hysterectomy in Denmark. Further, to investigate these suspension methods' possible association with pain, life quality, sexuality, pessary use, and POP .
The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of R-SCP versus HUSLS for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
The aim of this study is to investigate the safety and effectivity of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. In this multi center study the population consists of POP operations done in Finland year 2015.The study is prospective and validated questionnaires are used to measure the symptoms of POP and the quality of life before and six months after the operation. Methods and complications of surgery are reported by doctors in all 40 participant hospitals.
The study includes five (5) main stages: Screening, Enrollment, Size fitting, Usage and Termination. Subject screening will be held during visit one (1) and visit two (2) at the clinic. Initiation and Size fitting: All eligible subjects will undergo size fitting by a gynecologist / urogynecologist, during visit 2, to find the suitable size for her. The subject will use the ProVATE device of the chosen size at the clinic vicinity for about one (1) hour and for 40-80 hours at her home environment, to confirm that the chosen size is appropriate for the user. Each usage will be followed by a vaginal examination. In case the investigator will determine that the subject should be fitted with a different size of the ProVATE device the subject will repeat this stage with a different device size until the suitable size is confirmed by the investigator. Usage: The subject will use the ProVATE device for at least 28 days during a 45 days period, at her home environment, and fill a usage diary. Each device will be used for at least 24 hours. At least one (1) follow-up phone call will be held with the subject per a week. After 14 usage days or following at least two (2) usages (the latest of them) the subject will be scheduled for vaginal examination at the clinic (visit four (4)). End Of Use At the end of use the subject will return to the clinic (visit five (5)) for a vaginal examination and additional activities. The following questionnaires will be filled at baseline and end of study: Quality Of Life (QoL) and POP symptoms. Satisfaction and Ease Of Use questionnaires will be filled at the end of use (visit 5) Up to four (4) ProVATE device models will be tested in this study.
Pelvic organ prolapse is highly prevalent in the female population. The recurrence rate of pelvic organ prolapse after surgical treatment is high. This emphasizes the clinical need for improvement of the surgical techniques currently used. Placement of a mesh aims at reducing the recurrence rate. In this study the investigators compare the effectiveness of the Tension free Vaginal mesh + Monocryl with standard vaginal prolapse surgery without mesh.
Objectives: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition for which pessaries are commonly used in conservative treatment. Despite their prevalence, there is no literature to guide the management of pessaries. Our objective is to determine whether patients managed with a pessary for POP are more satisfied with follow-up at 3 or 6 month intervals and if there is any difference in complications rates between the two groups. Hypothesis: The investigators hypothesize that there will be higher patient satisfaction in the group randomized to 6 month follow-up intervals and that there will be no difference in complication rates between the two follow-up groups. Method: The investigators will conduct a prospective randomized control trial comparing patient satisfaction and complication rates between patients with pessaries randomized to either 3 or 6 month follow-up intervals over 1 year.