Prolapse Repair
ProcedureTransvaginal anterior/apical pelvic organ prolapse repair
Other names: Transvaginal, Prolapse, POP Repair, Anterior, Apical
NCT Number: NCT01945580
To compare transvaginal repair with a biologic graft to traditional native tissue repair in women surgically treated for anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
Female
Interventional
Not applicable
University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California, United States
The primary objective is to evaluate clinical effectiveness of transvaginal repair with Xenform against traditional native tissue repair in women surgically treated for anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary objectives are to evaluate Xenform-related complications and subject reported outcomes.
The primary endpoint of the study is to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal repair with Xenform over native tissue repair at 36 months as compared to baseline. Success will be based on a composite of objective and subjective measures.
Additionally, a co-primary endpoint of the study is to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal repair with Xenform to native tissue repair for safety by comparing rates of serious device or serious procedure related complications between baseline and the 36 month time point.
The secondary endpoints of the study include assessments of complications and subject reported outcomes.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Transvaginal anterior/apical pelvic organ prolapse repair
Other names: Transvaginal, Prolapse, POP Repair, Anterior, Apical
Time frame: 36 Months
The primary endpoint of the study was to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal repair with Xenform over NTR at 36 months as compared to baseline. Success was based on a composite of objective and subjective measures.
Time frame: 36 months
Co-primary endpoint of the study was to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal mesh repair with Xenform to NTR for safety by comparing rates of serious device-related or serious procedure-related complications between baseline and the 36-month time point.
Time frame: 36 months
Incidence of Mesh Erosion at 36 months
Time frame: 36 Months
Incidence of mesh exposure at 36 months
Time frame: 36 months
Incidence of de novo dyspareunia at 36 months
Time frame: 36 months
Improvement in subject specific outcomes at 36 months compared to baseline [quality of life (QOL) per the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7)]
The PFIQ-7 is composed of three separate but related assessments: the UIQ-7 addresses the impact of urinary incontinence symptoms, the CRAIQ-7 addresses the impact of colorectal-anal or bowel symptoms, and the POPIQ-7 addresses impact of vaginal and pelvic symptoms. For each question, the low score (0) corresponds to "not at all" and the high score (3) corresponds to "quite a bit". The scores for the UIQ-7, CRAIQ-7 and POPIQ-7 are additive to yield the final PFIQ-7 score. The scale scores are then added together to get the total PFIQ-7 score, which ranges from 0-300. A lower score means there is a lesser effect on quality of life.
Reported score is change from baseline at 36 months.
Time frame: 36 months
Improvement in subject specific outcomes at 36 months compared to baseline [pelvic floor symptoms per the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20)]
The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) is complimentary to the PFIQ-7 and focuses on symptoms of distress in the same compartmentalized fashion as the PFIQ-7. Like the PFIQ-7, the PFDI-20 consists of three components: Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI; 6 questions), the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI; 6 questions), and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI; 8 questions). The scoring for the PFDI-20 is similar to the PFIQ-7 where each individual component score is summed. The total ranges from 0 to 300 with a higher score indicating a greater impact to QOL (i.e., distress symptoms are more noticeable) and a lower score indicating a lesser impact to QOL (i.e., distress symptoms are less noticeable).
The reported result is change from baseline at 36 months.
Time frame: 36 months
Improvement in subject specific outcomes at 36 months compared to baseline [change in sexual functioning per the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12)]
This is a self-administered questionnaire and the responses are graded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (always) to 4 (never). Values range from 0 to 48 and a higher score indicates better sexual function.
The reported result is change from baseline at 36 months.
Time frame: 36 months
Improvement in subject specific outcomes at 36 months compared to baseline [pain per the TOMUS pain scale]
The TOMUS Pain Score, a visual analog instrument with a scale of 0 (no pain sensation) to 10 (most intense pain sensation imaginable), was used to assess pain associated with surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in this study. There are seven (7) questions each with a maximum score of 10 and a possible score range of 0-70).
The reported results are change from baseline at 36 months.
Time frame: 36 months
Assessment of subject's level of improvement, measured by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement for Prolapse (PGI-I)
The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for prolapse symptoms is a validated QOL instrument that assesses patient perception of overall improvement after surgical interventions for POP.12 The scale rates the patient's improvement or worsening of prolapse symptoms relative to baseline. The scale is as follows: 1- Very much better; 2- Much better; 3- A little better; 4- No change; 5- A little worse; 6- Much worse; 7- Very much worse. Assessments were performed at 6-month intervals beginning 6 months after the index procedure.
Time frame: 36 months
Absence of re-intervention or re-surgery for recurrence or persistence of POP or Xenform exposure/erosion
Time frame: 36 months
Surgical success based on the following composite outcome:
Time frame: 36 Months
Incidence of the following device-related or procedure-related adverse events (AEs): pelvic pain, infection, vaginal shortening, atypical vaginal discharge, neuromuscular problems, vaginal scarring, de novo vaginal bleeding, fistula formation and/or de novo voiding dysfunction.
Boston Scientific Corporation
Industry
A Prospective, Non-Randomized, Parallel Cohort, Multi-Center Study of Xenform vs. Native Tissue for the Treatment of Women With Anterior/Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Acronym: Xenform
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.
NCT02890498
Pathological Conditions, Anatomical, Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms
Nîmes, France
View Trial DetailsNCT06532292
Pathological Conditions, Anatomical, Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms
Taipei, Taiwan
View Trial DetailsNCT07554651
Female Urogenital Diseases, Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications
Dnipro, Ukraine
View Trial DetailsNCT07552337
Pathological Conditions, Anatomical, Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms
Diyarbakır, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial Details