Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT05602246

Study Comparing Transobturator Cystocele vs. Anterior Vaginal RepairS

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.

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

50 year and older

Sex eligibility

Female

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czechia

Loading trial locations.

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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

Treatment and study plan

Transobturator cystocele repair

Procedure

Novel transvaginal surgical reconstruction of anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse.

Other names: TOCR

Anterior colporrhaphy

Procedure

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

Other names: Anterior repair

Primary outcomes

  1. Anatomic failure

    Time frame: 1 year

    Anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse stage ≥ 2( i.e. pelvic organ prolpase quantification (POPQ) point Ba, or C of > -1)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Composite surgery failure

    Time frame: 1 year

    Composite 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. 2-year composite surgery failure

    Time frame: 2 years

    Composite 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

  3. 2-year anatomic failure

    Time frame: 2 years

    Anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse stage ≥ 2( i.e. POPQ point Ba, or C of > -1)

  4. Complication rate

    Time frame: 1 year

    Number of complications Dindo-Clavien Grade > 2

  5. Pain after the surgery

    Time frame: Postoperative day 14

    visual analog scale (VAS) ≥ 3 (range 0-10, higher is worse)

  6. Subjective perception of improvement

    Time frame: 1 year

    Patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) ≤ 2 (range 1-7, higher is worse)

  7. 2-year subjective perception of improvement

    Time frame: 2 years

    PGI-I ≤ 2 (range 1-7, higher is worse)

  8. Patient satisfaction

    Time frame: 1 year

    Subjectively assessed by the patient on a scale 0 - 100%. Satisfaction with the surgery ≥ 80 %.

  9. De novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI)

    Time frame: 1 year

    Any new stress leaks of urine reported by the patient ≥ once a week, or treatment

  10. De novo overactive bladder (OAB)

    Time frame: 1 year

    de novo OAB ≥ once a week, or treatment

  11. Change in quality of life - urinary incontience

    Time frame: 1 year

    assessed by Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6) score, range 0-100, higher is worse

  12. Change in quality of life - prolapse bother

    Time frame: 1 year

    assessed by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI-6) score, range 0-100, higher is worse

  13. Change in quality of life - anorectal problems

    Time frame: 1 year

    assessed by Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) score,range 0-100, higher is worse.

  14. Change in quality of sexual life

    Time frame: 1 year

    assessed by Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR) single summary score in sexually active women (higher is better)

  15. Change in severity of urinary incontinence

    Time frame: 1 year

    assessed by International Consultation of Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) score (0-21, higher is worse)

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Vladimir Kalis, prof. MD PhD

CONTACT

[email protected]

+420377105228

Zdenek Rusavy, assoc. prof. MD PhD

CONTACT

[email protected]

+420377105440

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Charles University, Czech Republic

Other

Registry information

Acronym: STARS

Important dates

Study start
2022
Primary completion
2029
Study completion
2034
First posted
Nov 2, 2022
Registry last updated
Mar 19, 2026

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.