NCT03766048

LAparoscopic Preventive PRErectal Mesh

Non-inferiority Randomized Double Blind Controlled Trial Comparing Results of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy With or Without Preventive Prerectal Mesh in Women Operated for Urogenital Prolapse Without Significant Posterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse

• Status: Unknown
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 834 (estimated)
• Sponsor: University Hospital, Lille · Academic / Other
• Sex: Female
• Age: 40 Years – 75 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

Urogenital prolapse is a frequent and invalidating pathology in women, involving the anterior vaginal wall and the uterus in most cases. Posterior vaginal wall prolapse is present in only 50% of cases. Surgery is an option for women with troublesome prolapse. A woman's lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery by the age of 80 is around 19%. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) with synthetic non-absorbable mesh is considered the gold standard, with a composite success rate of 85% at one year (Prospere study). Based on early experience and historical habits, a prerectal mesh was used to be systematically placed in the rectovaginal space, in addition to the anterior and apical mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space, in order to prevent de-novo posterior prolapse (reported rates up to 33%). The benefit of preventive prerectal mesh is questionned on the basis of a single retrospective study comparing 68 LS with double-mesh (anterior \& posterior, DM) to 32 LS with a single anterior mesh (SAM): posterior recurrence rates were respectively 5.9 vs. 31.3% (p\<0,01), and total recurrence rates 16.2 vs. 43.8% (p\<0.01). However, as this difference was not significant in the subgroup of patients without associated cervicocystopexy, the authors concluded that the risk of posterior failure was only due to the cervicocystopexy itself (anti-urinary incontinence procedure which has been abandoned since). On the other hand, a prerectal mesh increases the risk for specific complications: rectal injury (up to 3%), anal pain (up to 25%), mesh exposition (up to 2%). Furthermore the posterior mesh increases the procedure by a minimum of 30 minutes (Robolaps study, unpublished data). The rate of de-novo obstructed defecation after LS with prerectal mesh is reported up to 25%. It could be explained by the mesh itself, but also by nerve injuries during the dissection of the rectovaginal space and rectal stalks.

Conditions

• Urogenital Prolapse

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
PROCEDURE	Single-Anterior-Mesh, SAM	laparoscopic sacropexy is only performed with the anterior mes
PROCEDURE	Double-Mesh, DM	laparoscopic sacropexy is performed using two synthetic non-absorbable meshes, both sutured to the promontory (Double-Mesh, DM): one mesh is placed in the vesicovaginal space and sutured to the uterine cervix or vaginal apex, and one mesh is placed in the rectovaginal space

Timeline

• Start date: 2019-09-11
• Primary completion: 2025-12-01
• Completion: 2025-12-01
• First posted: 2018-12-05
• Last updated: 2023-02-06

Locations

9 sites across 1 country: France