Pelvic prolapse surgery showdown: which method causes less leakage?
NCT ID NCT03200327
First seen Jun 27, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026
Summary
This study compared two surgical procedures for treating pelvic organ prolapse in women aged 50-80. One method uses a vaginal approach (sacrospinofixation) and the other uses keyhole surgery through the abdomen (laparoscopic promontofixation). The goal was to see which causes less new stress urinary incontinence after surgery. The trial was terminated early and enrolled 55 participants.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.
What this could lead to
If successful, this could show that one surgical method reduces post-surgery urine leakage and costs less than the other, with similar effectiveness.
What could go wrong
The trial was terminated early and had only 55 participants, so results may be inconclusive. Surgical risks like pain or sexual discomfort remain possible.
Disclaimer
Read more
Show less
This is a summary of
the original study
.
Summaries may miss details or leave out important information. Before applying or accepting participation, make sure you have read and understood the full study. Curemydisease.com takes no responsibility whatsoever for anything missed, misunderstood, or acted upon as a result of our summary — we know it does not capture everything.
This is a summary of the original study . Summaries may miss details or leave out important information. Before applying or accepting participation, make sure you have read and understood the full study. Curemydisease.com takes no responsibility whatsoever for anything missed, misunderstood, or acted upon as a result of our summary — we know it does not capture everything.
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for PROLAPSE GENITAL are added.
By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use
Conditions
The condition(s) this trial relates to.
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.
Contacts and locations
Show contact details
Enter your email to view the contact information for this study.
By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use
Locations
-
CHU Nimes
Nîmes, 30029, France
-
CHU de Lille
Lille, 59037, France
-
CHU de Montpellier
Montpellier, 34295, France
-
CHU de clermont-Ferrand
Clermont-Ferrand, 63003, France
-
Clinique Beau-Soleil
Montpellier, 34070, France
-
HFME - Hospices Civils de Lyon
Lyon, 69677, France