View clinical trials related to Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
Filter by:Objective: This prospective randomized trial evaluated outcomes of colposacropexy performed either by open or by conventional laparoscopic approach as therapy for uterovaginal prolapse. Surgical techniques, efficacy and overall results are compared. Methods: In this prospective study 40 consecutive patients with uro-genital prolapse are randomized to sacropexy: 20 by an open approach, 20 by a conventional laparoscopy approach. Anchorage is achieved in both groups by two polypropylene meshes. Check-ups were scheduled at 3, 6, 12 months and then yearly. Pre-operative patient characteristics, operative and post-operative events and follow-up results are recorded.
Pelvic organ prolapse is a problem experienced by women where a bulge comes down in the vagina, and may even drop down outside the vagina. The bulge in the vagina is caused by other organs moving down from their normal position in the pelvis and pushing into the vagina. This is a very common problem and many women who have given birth will have a very mild bulge which does not cause them symptoms. Women can however experience a variety of pelvic, bladder, bowel and sexual symptoms which impact on daily life. No research studies have properly examined whether or not exercises can prevent prolapse. This study aims to explore whether exercises taught by a physiotherapist can prevent women developing a prolapse which requires them to have treatment.
Women will be invited to participate in E-OPTIMAL at their last clinical follow-up visit for OPTIMAL (at 24 months post surgery). E-OPTIMAL is an extension of the ongoing OPTIMAL study and no new study treatment interventions will be given. Rather an enrollment intervention will be investigated with potential E-OPTIMAL participants randomly assigned to watch a standardized video prior to consent or undergo the standard informed consent process. The standardized video will review the rationale for women's health research, the importance of long-term follow-up and a detailed invitation to participate in E-OPTIMAL. The video has undergone review by potential subjects, coordinators and physician researchers to ensure that the relevance and importance of issues potentially impacting on long-term participation in studies such as E-OPTIMAL are covered. Participation in E-OPTIMAL will occur up to three additional years. Women will be strongly encouraged to participate in annual examinations and annual telephone surveys but may participate in only one of these study parts if needed. We propose to test the following null hypotheses: 1. There will be no difference in time to surgical failure between uterosacral vaginal vault ligament suspension (ULS) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) up to 5 years after surgery. 2. The addition of a standardized video detailing the importance of long-term follow-up studies for POP to the informed consent process will not improve enrollment or retention in E-OPTIMAL.
1. To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness of a PFMT intervention in conjunction with vaginal pessary management versus vaginal pessary management alone for women with pelvic organ prolapse. 2. To develop and test the methods for a main trial. The ultimate aim of a large multi-centre RCT would be to answer the question: Is conservative management of pelvic organ prolapse with an individualised PFMT intervention in conjunction with vaginal pessary more effective than vaginal pessary alone in reducing prolapse-specific symptoms, prolapse severity and the need for further prolapse treatment?
The purpose of this study is to compare the touch-screen version of the PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ 12 and SF-36 french questionnaires to their paper versions. The investigators hypothesize that the percentage of completely filled questionnaires will be higher in the touch-screen version.
retrospective and prospective data collection for a database. Patients will have had or are going to have a repair of their pelvic organ prolapse using the Gynecare mesh Prolift System
The purpose of this research is to determine if there is a difference in total costs of care and return to health in women who undergo a laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC)compared to those undergoing the same procedure with the assistance of a robot. Both traditional laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic approaches have been found to result in shorter hospital stays, decreased blood loss and similar surgical outcomes as compared to open abdominal surgery. The decision to use robotic assistance is typically based on surgeon preference and robot availability. Thje investigators don't know if the decision to use robotic assistance at the time of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a benefit for the patient. The investigators will compare the outcomes of cost, quality of life, and return to work for women who undergo a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy utilizing the robot to those using traditional laparoscopic techniques. This research study is designed to compare the total costs and treatment success of these two surgical techniques. In addition, the investigators also will compare outcomes of post-operative pain, quality of life, sexual function, return to normal activities and satisfaction with treatment outcome.
The objective is to evaluate and optimize tactile imaging technology in evaluation of tissue elasticity parameters in the female pelvis.
The primary objective of this pilot study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the VFIX device in maintaining vaginal apical support for at least 6 months in women with symptomatic apical prolapse (upper vaginal or uterine prolapse).
Pelvic prolapse is one of the most frequent pathology in Gynecology. Recurrency of the prolapse after primary surgery is relatively high, 15-30%. Sacrocolpopexy has showed to be effective but it requires a long learning curves and is more aggressive. New meshes techniques seem to be effective, as well, with less learning curve but they are expensive and there are no randomize studies published. The investigators aim is to compare both techniques in terms of: anatomical and functional efficacy, cost, operating time and complications.