Urogynecology Unit
Cairo, Egypt
NCT Number: NCT03494582
This study will compare the vaginal versus the abdominal approach for the management of uterine prolapse
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me20 year–40 year
Female
Interventional
Not applicable
Cairo, Egypt
this study compares The unilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy with prolene sutures versus the abdominal sacral hysteropexy using Mersilene suture for the management of uterine prolapse
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Abdominal approach for uterine suspension
Transvaginal approach for uterine suspension
Time frame: 3 month
compare Pelvic organ prolapse quantification system between groups
Time frame: 1 day
operative time
Time frame: 1 day
blood loss
Ain Shams Maternity Hospital
Other
Trans Vaginal Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Abdominal Sacral Hysteropexy for the Management of Uterine Prolapse
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT07094815
Female Urogenital Diseases, Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications
Istanbul, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial DetailsNCT02431897
Cystocele, Female Urogenital Diseases
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT04038099
Cystocele, Female Urogenital Diseases
Dallas, Texas, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT00475540
Cystocele, Digestive System Diseases
Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States
View Trial Details