Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 10:06 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-25 @ 7:43 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04133935
Status:
WITHDRAWN
Last Update Posted:
2021-11-22
First Post:
2019-09-30
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Treating Stress Urinary Incontinence: Laparoscopic Obturator Urethropexy vs Burch Urethropexy
Sponsor:
Mount Sinai Hospital, Canada
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Prospective Review of Laparoscopic Burch Urethropexy Compared With a Novel Technique of Laparoscopic Obturator Urethropexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Status:
WITHDRAWN
Status Verified Date:
2021-11
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Due to COVID restrictions this study has been temporarily halted.
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a highly prevalent concern within the female population. Although mid urethral slings (MUS) have been the first line treatment for SUI for almost twenty years, due to recent FDA warnings and many countries banning the use of vaginal mesh, a significant portion of patients now request non-mesh anti-incontinence procedures. In such cases, Burch colposuspension would be the next option discussed with patients.
In the short term, the efficacy of Burch colposuspension is comparable to MUS. However, the noteworthy disadvantages of Burch colposuspension include a high rate of urinary retention. This increased risk of urinary retention is due to the acute angle of the stitches, and is a problem that Burch colposuspension shares with the retropubic sling, a type of acutely-angled MUS. A variant of the retropubic sling, the transobturator tape (TOT), has shown that a rounder angle of elevation significantly reduces the risk of urinary retention. As such, this study proposes a novel technique of laparoscopic obturator urethropexy (LOU) as an alternative to the traditional Burch colposuspension.
In this new proposed technique, stitches are placed into the obturator internus fascia rather than Cooper's ligament, reducing the angle of elevation of the bladder neck, aiming to lower the risk of post-operative urinary retention. The aim of our randomized control trial is to assess the effectiveness of LOU compared to Burch colposuspension in terms of urinary continence. Our secondary aim is to report on perioperative and postoperative complications, functional outcomes including urinary retention, recurrent urinary tract infection, recurrent/persistent urgency, de novo urgency, recurrent SUI, and sexual function, as well as overall quality of life.
In the short term, the efficacy of Burch colposuspension is comparable to MUS. However, the noteworthy disadvantages of Burch colposuspension include a high rate of urinary retention. This increased risk of urinary retention is due to the acute angle of the stitches, and is a problem that Burch colposuspension shares with the retropubic sling, a type of acutely-angled MUS. A variant of the retropubic sling, the transobturator tape (TOT), has shown that a rounder angle of elevation significantly reduces the risk of urinary retention. As such, this study proposes a novel technique of laparoscopic obturator urethropexy (LOU) as an alternative to the traditional Burch colposuspension.
In this new proposed technique, stitches are placed into the obturator internus fascia rather than Cooper's ligament, reducing the angle of elevation of the bladder neck, aiming to lower the risk of post-operative urinary retention. The aim of our randomized control trial is to assess the effectiveness of LOU compared to Burch colposuspension in terms of urinary continence. Our secondary aim is to report on perioperative and postoperative complications, functional outcomes including urinary retention, recurrent urinary tract infection, recurrent/persistent urgency, de novo urgency, recurrent SUI, and sexual function, as well as overall quality of life.
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: