Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Sep;33(5):1011-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.05.007. Epub 2012 May 27.

Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies (ACCESS)

E R Mueller  1 , K Kenton, C Tarnay, L Brubaker, A Rosenman, B Smith, K Stroupe, C Bresee, A Pantuck, P Schulam, J T Anger
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies (ACCESS)

E R Mueller et al. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012 Sep.

Abstract

Introduction: Robotic assistance during laparoscopic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse rapidly disseminated across the United States without level I data to support its benefit over traditional open and laparoscopic approaches [1]. This manuscript describes design and methodology of the Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies (ACCESS) Trial.

Methods: ACCESS is a randomized comparative effectiveness trial enrolling patients at two academic teaching facilities, UCLA (Los Angeles, CA) and Loyola University (Chicago, IL). The primary aim is to compare costs of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy (RASC vs LASC). Following a clinical decision for minimally-invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) and research consent, participants with symptomatic stage≥II pelvic organ prolapse are randomized to LASC or RASC on the day of surgery. Costs of care are based on each patient's billing record and equipment costs at each hospital. All costs associated with surgical procedure including costs for robot and initial hospitalization and any re-hospitalization in the first 6weeks are compared between groups. Secondary outcomes include post-operative pain, anatomic outcomes, symptom severity and quality of life, and adverse events. Power calculation determined that 32 women in each arm would provide 95% power to detect a $2500 difference in total charges, using a two-sided two sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.

Results: Enrollment was completed in May 2011. The 12-month follow-up was completed in May 2012.

Conclusions: This is a multi-center study to assess cost as a primary outcome in a comparative effectiveness trial of LASC versus RASC.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study schema.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L, Brubaker L, Cardozo L, Chapple C, et al. Fourth international consultation on incontinence recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29:213–40. - PubMed
    1. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805–23. - PubMed
    1. Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:1418. discussion 1421–2. - PubMed
    1. Maher CF, Qatwneh A, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter P. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. A prospective randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:20–6. - PubMed
    1. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:004014. - PubMed

Publication types