Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomised controlled trial and prospective cohort (SALTO-2 trial).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) or vaginal sacrospinous fixation (VSF) is the most optimal surgical treatment in patients with POP-Q stage ≥2 vaginal vault prolapse (VVP). DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) and prospective cohort study alongside. SETTING: Seven non-university teaching hospitals and two university hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Patients with symptomatic post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse, requiring surgical treatment. METHODS: Randomisation in a 1:1 ratio to LSC or VSF. Evaluation of prolapse was done using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q). All participants were asked to fill in various Dutch validated questionnaires 12 months postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes included composite outcome of success and anatomical failure. Furthermore, we examined peri-operative data, complications and sexual function. RESULTS: A total of 179 women, 64 women randomised and 115 women, participated in a prospective cohort. Disease-specific quality of life did not differ after 12 months between the LSC and VSF group in the RCT and the cohort (RCT: P = 0.887; cohort: P = 0.704). The composite outcomes of success for the apical compartment, in the RCT and cohort, were 89.3% and 90.3% in the LSC group and 86.2% and 87.8% in the VSF group, respectively (RCT: P = 0.810; cohort: P = 0.905). There were no differences in number of reinterventions and complications between both groups (reinterventions RCT: P = 0.934; cohort: P = 0.120; complications RCT: P = 0.395; cohort: P = 0.129). CONCLUSIONS: LSC and VSF are both effective treatments for vaginal vault prolapse, after a follow-up period of 12 months.

Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study).

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects up to 40% of parous women which adversely affects the quality of life. During a life time, 20% of all women will undergo an operation. In general the guidelines advise a vaginal operation in case of uterine descent: hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament plication (VH), sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) or a modified Manchester operation (MM). In the last decade, renewed interest in uterus sparing techniques has been observed. Previous studies have shown non-inferiority between SSH and VH. Whether or not SSH and MM are comparable concerning anatomical and functional outcome is still unknown. The practical application of both operations is at least in The Netherlands a known cause of practice pattern variation (PPV). To reveal any difference between both techniques the SAM-study was designed. METHODS: The SAM-study is a randomized controlled multicentre non-inferiority study which compares SSH and MM. Women with symptomatic POP in any stage, uterine descent and POP-Quantification (POP-Q) point D at ≤ minus 1 cm are eligible. The primary outcome is the composite outcome at two years of absence of prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment, the absence of bulge symptoms and absence of reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary outcomes are hospital parameters, surgery related morbidity/complications, pain perception, further treatments for prolapse or urinary incontinence, POP-Q anatomy in all compartments, quality-of-life, sexual function, and cost-effectiveness. Follow-up takes place at 6 weeks, 12 and 24 months. Additionally at 12 weeks, 6 and 9 months cost-effectiveness will be assessed. Validated questionnaires will be used and gynaecological examination will be performed. Analysis will be performed following the intention-to-treat and per protocol principle. With a non-inferiority margin of 9% and an expected loss to follow-up of 10%, 424 women will be needed to prove non-inferiority with a confidence interval of 95%. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness and costs of SSH versus MM in women with primary POP. The evidence will show whether the existing PPV is detrimental and a de-implementation process regarding one of the operations is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 6978, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 29 January 2018. Prospectively registered.

The (cost) effectiveness of procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia for hysteroscopic myomectomy, a multicentre randomised controlled trial: PROSECCO trial, a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In women with abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids are a frequent finding. In case of heavy menstrual bleeding and presence of submucosal type 0-1 fibroids, hysteroscopic resection is the treatment of first choice, as removal of these fibroids is highly effective. Hysteroscopic myomectomy is currently usually performed in the operating theatre. A considerable reduction in costs and a higher patient satisfaction are expected when procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol (PSA) in an outpatient setting is applied. However, both safety and effectiveness - including the necessity for re-intervention due to incomplete resection - have not yet been evaluated. METHODS: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design and will be performed in the Netherlands. Women > 18 years with a maximum of 3 symptomatic type 0 or 1 submucosal fibroids with a maximum diameter of 3.5 cm are eligible to participate in the trial. After informed consent, 205 women will be randomised to either hysteroscopic myomectomy using procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol in an outpatient setting or hysteroscopic myomectomy using general anaesthesia in a clinical setting in the operating theatre. Primary outcome will be the percentage of complete resections, based on transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are cost effectiveness, menstrual blood loss (Pictorial blood assessment chart), quality of life, pain, return to daily activities/work, hospitalization, (post) operative complications and re-interventions. Women will be followed up to one year after hysteroscopic myomectomy. DISCUSSION: This study may demonstrate comparable effectiveness of hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia in a safe and patient friendly environment, whilst achieving a significant cost reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register, number NTR5357 . Registered 11th of August 2015.

Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands: a clinical practice survey.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: A great variety of conservative and surgical procedures to correct vaginal vault prolapse have been reported. The aim of this study was to describe practice pattern variation-the difference in care that cannot be explained by the underlying medical condition-among Dutch gynecologists regarding treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. METHODS: A clinical practice survey was conducted from March to April 2017. The questionnaire was developed to evaluate treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. All members of the Dutch Society for Urogynaecology were invited to participate in a web-based survey. RESULTS: One hundred four Dutch gynecologists with special interest in urogynecology responded to the survey (response rate, 44%). As first-choice therapy for vaginal vault prolapse, 78% of the respondents chose pessary treatment, whereas sacrospinous fixation was the second most common therapy choice according to 64% of the respondents. Preferences on how to approach vaginal vault prolapse surgically are conflicting. Overall, the most performed surgery for vaginal vault prolapse is sacrospinous fixation, followed by laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologists in The Netherlands manage vaginal vault prolapse very differently. No standardized method could be determined for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands, and we observed practice pattern variations.

Variation in the practice of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Dutch survey.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic techniques for pelvic organ prolapse surgery using mesh are gaining interest. A standard approach or published guideline for the laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is lacking. The purpose of this study is to assess the variation between Dutch gynecologists in executing LSH and LSC. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the technique of LSH and LSC. All members of the Dutch Society for Gynecological Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery and the Dutch Society for Urogynecology were invited by email to participate in a web-based survey. RESULTS: With 357 respondents, the response rate was 71%. Of the respondents, a total of 49 gynecologists (13.7%) perform LSH and/or LSC. Gynecologists who perform both procedures use the same surgical technique for LSH and LSC. There are variations among gynecologists on several key points such as the level of dissection along the anterior and posterior walls of the vagina, the type of mesh used, the type of sutures used, the tension of the implanted mesh and reperitonealization of the mesh. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high practice variation in LSH and LSC performed by a selected group of Dutch gynecologists. Different methods have been described in the literature and there is no consensus on how to perform these procedures. A well-designed prospective study or randomized controlled trial with regard to the specific parts of these procedures is needed to provide evidence for the best surgical technique. The outcomes of these studies will help to establish evidence-based guidelines.

Protocol for the value of urodynamics prior to stress incontinence surgery (VUSIS) study: a multicenter randomized controlled trial to assess the cost effectiveness of urodynamics in women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence in whom surgical treatment is considered.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common problem. In the Netherlands, yearly 64.000 new patients, of whom 96% are women, consult their general practitioner because of urinary incontinence. Approximately 7500 urodynamic evaluations and approximately 5000 operations for SUI are performed every year. In all major national and international guidelines from both gynaecological and urological scientific societies, it is advised to perform urodynamics prior to invasive treatment for SUI, but neither its effectiveness nor its cost-effectiveness has been assessed in a randomized setting. The Value of Urodynamics prior to Stress Incontinence Surgery (VUSIS) study evaluates the positive and negative effects with regard to outcome, as well as the costs of urodynamics, in women with symptoms of SUI in whom surgical treatment is considered. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre diagnostic cohort study will be performed with an embedded randomized controlled trial among women presenting with symptoms of (predominant) SUI. Urinary incontinence has to be demonstrated on clinical examination and/or voiding diary. Physiotherapy must have failed and surgical treatment needs to be under consideration. Patients will be excluded in case of previous incontinence surgery, in case of pelvic organ prolapse more than 1 centimeter beyond the hymen and/or in case of residual bladder volume of more than 150 milliliter on ultrasound or catheterisation. Patients with discordant findings between the diagnosis based on urodynamic investigation and the diagnosis based on their history, clinical examination and/or micturition diary will be randomized to operative therapy or individually tailored therapy based on all available information. Patients will be followed for two years after treatment by their attending urologist or gynaecologist, in combination with the completion of questionnaires. Six hundred female patients will be recruited for registration from approximately twenty-seven hospitals in the Netherlands. We aspect that one hundred and two women with discordant findings will be randomized. The primary outcome of this study is clinical improvement of incontinence as measured with the validated Dutch version of the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI). Secondary outcomes of this study include costs, cure of incontinence as measured by voiding diary parameters, complications related to the intervention, re-interventions, and generic quality of life changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT00814749.