Trials / Completed
CompletedNCT01611285
Uphold Versus Robotic Surgery for Pelvic Prolapse Repair: A Decision Analytic Approach
- Status
- Completed
- Phase
- —
- Study type
- Observational
- Enrollment
- 20 (actual)
- Sponsor
- Atlantic Health System · Academic / Other
- Sex
- Female
- Age
- 18 Years – 90 Years
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
Summary
Within the general objective of investigating optimal medical techniques for pelvic prolapse repair, this study proposes to: (1) test the hypothesis that the UPHOLD procedure is more cost effective than robotic surgery for pelvic prolapse repair (2)using formal decision analysis as the comparative strategy
Detailed description
The cumulative incidence of pelvic organ prolapse was approximately 2% in 2001. Given the aging demographics in the U.S., the incidence of prolapse is projected to increase to 30% or more for women aged 60 years and older and become of greater concern to both patients and physicians. The demand for gynecologic services is predicted to increase by more than 45% in the next ten years. Prolapse is related to childbirth, aging, defects in collagen, and smooth muscle structure and strength. Etiology includes intra-abdominal pressure from obesity, with obesity becoming an ever increasing factor in the US. Treatment Choice of Patients: Patients choose between pessary, surgery, and expectant management based on: age, prior prolapse surgery, preoperative pelvic pain scores, and pelvic organ prolapse severity. These are difficult decisions for patients. When it comes to choosing between destinctive interventions with subtle advantages and disadvantages, patients typically want to hear their physician's views of the scientific merits of each procedure. Informed consent becomes extremely difficult when issues of cost-effectiveness are at hand. Thus, the proposed project.
Conditions
Timeline
- Start date
- 2010-11-01
- Primary completion
- 2011-07-01
- Completion
- 2011-08-01
- First posted
- 2012-06-04
- Last updated
- 2017-06-09
Locations
1 site across 1 country: United States
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT01611285. Inclusion in this directory is not an endorsement.