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
. 2018 Mar 5;19(1):160.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2494-x.

Laparoscopic inguinal ligament suspension versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Chunbo Li  1 , Zhiyuan Dai  2 , Huimin Shu  1
Affiliations

Laparoscopic inguinal ligament suspension versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Chunbo Li et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common health problem. The lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for prolapse is 11%. POP significantly affects the effects on quality of life and activities of daily living. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has been viewed as the gold standard treatment for women with POP who desire reconstructive surgery. However, LSC is associated with technical difficulties, resulting in a long learning curve and operative time. Recently, our team introduced a new laparoscopic technique of inguinal ligament suspension (LILS) and had confirmed its safety and efficacy in treating vaginal vault prolapse. As a new surgical technique for POP, a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the LILS with the standard technique of LSC is necessary. Therefore, we will conduct a trial.

Methods: The trial is a randomized controlled trial. It compares LILS with LSC in women with stage 2 or higher uterine prolapse. The primary outcomes of this study are perioperative parameters, including surgical time, blood loss, intraoperative complications, and hospital stay as well as surgical anatomical results using the pelvic organ prolapse questionnaire (POP-Q) classification at 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and annually till 5 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes are subjective improvement in urogenital symptoms and quality of life, postoperative complications, postoperative recovery, sexual functioning, and cost-effectiveness at each follow-up point. Validated questionnaires will be used and the data will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Based on an objective success rate of 90%, a noninferiority margin of 15%, and a dropout of 20%, 107 patients are needed in each arm to prove the hypothesis with a 95% confidence interval.

Discussion: The trial is a randomized controlled, multicenter, noninferiority trial that will provide evidence whether the efficacy and safety of LILS is noninferior to LSC in women with symptomatic stage 2 or higher uterine prolapse.

Trial registration: China Trial Register (CTR): ChiCTR-INR-15007408 . Registered on 9 November 2015.

Keywords: Laparoscopic inguinal ligament suspension; Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy; Pelvic organ prolapse.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The trial has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Shanghai First Infant and Maternity Hospital and the local ethics committees of the participating centers (KS1513). Written informed consent will be obtained and documented for all study participants.

Consent for publication

The authors declare that they agree with publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Study flow diagram
Fig 2
Fig 2
SPIRIT figure
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–506. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cheon C, Maher C. Economics of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1873–1876. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2178-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1089–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.048. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gabriel B, Nassif J, Barata S, Wattiez A. Twenty years of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: where are we now? Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:1165–1169. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1361-z. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sarlos D, Kots L, Ryu G, Schaer G. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:1207–1212. doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2369-y. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms