Charles W Nager1, Halina Zyczynski, Rebecca G Rogers, Matthew D Barber, Holly E Richter, Anthony G Visco, Charles R Rardin, Heidi Harvie, Dennis Wallace, Susan F Meikle. 1. From the *Department of Reproductive Medicine, UC San Diego Health Care System, San Diego, CA; †Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh/ Magee Women-s Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; ‡Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Surgery, University of New Mexico Medical Center, Albuquerque, NM; §Obstetric, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; ∥Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; ¶Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; **Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Women's & Infants Hospital, Providence, RI; ††Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital of University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; ‡‡RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC; and §§Gynecologic Health and Disease Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We present the rationale for and design of a randomized controlled superiority trial comparing 2 vaginal surgical approaches for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. The Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial (SUPeR) trial compares the efficacy and safety of native tissue repair with vaginal hysterectomy and suture apical suspension versus uterine conservation with mesh hysteropexy through 36 to 60 months postoperatively for primary repair of uterovaginal prolapse. METHODS: The selection of the primary outcome measure, timing of randomization, patient and evaluator masking to surgical intervention, collection and adjudication of adverse events, cost effectiveness evaluations, partnering with industry, and surgeon certification of competency to perform the 2 procedures is described. A composite primary outcome of success defined as no prolapse symptoms, no objective prolapse beyond the hymen, and no retreatment of prolapse, with a minimum of 36 months postsurgery follow-up using survival analyses is planned. Secondary outcomes measured at baseline and every 6 months postsurgery include validated condition-specific and general quality of life assessments, global impression of improvement, body image, and sexual function measures. Unique challenges during the trial design include maintenance of patient masking to the intervention with routine gynecologic health maintenance and maintenance of evaluator masking. RESULTS: Recruitment and randomization of 180 participants is complete, and participants are currently in the follow-up phase. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide information to help surgeons counsel patients and contribute evidence-based information regarding risks and benefits of 2 approaches for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We present the rationale for and design of a randomized controlled superiority trial comparing 2 vaginal surgical approaches for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. The Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial (SUPeR) trial compares the efficacy and safety of native tissue repair with vaginal hysterectomy and suture apical suspension versus uterine conservation with mesh hysteropexy through 36 to 60 months postoperatively for primary repair of uterovaginal prolapse. METHODS: The selection of the primary outcome measure, timing of randomization, patient and evaluator masking to surgical intervention, collection and adjudication of adverse events, cost effectiveness evaluations, partnering with industry, and surgeon certification of competency to perform the 2 procedures is described. A composite primary outcome of success defined as no prolapse symptoms, no objective prolapse beyond the hymen, and no retreatment of prolapse, with a minimum of 36 months postsurgery follow-up using survival analyses is planned. Secondary outcomes measured at baseline and every 6 months postsurgery include validated condition-specific and general quality of life assessments, global impression of improvement, body image, and sexual function measures. Unique challenges during the trial design include maintenance of patient masking to the intervention with routine gynecologic health maintenance and maintenance of evaluator masking. RESULTS: Recruitment and randomization of 180 participants is complete, and participants are currently in the follow-up phase. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide information to help surgeons counsel patients and contribute evidence-based information regarding risks and benefits of 2 approaches for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse.
Authors: Jeffrey L Clemons; Milena Weinstein; Marsha K Guess; Marianna Alperin; Pamela Moalli; William Thomas Gregory; Emily S Lukacz; Vivian W Sung; Bertha H Chen; Catherine S Bradley Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Ingrid Nygaard; Alison C Weidner; Shawn A Menefee; Emily S Lukacz; Peggy Norton; Joseph Schaffer; John N Nguyen; Diane Borello-France; Patricia S Goode; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Cathie Spino; Lauren Klein Warren; Marie G Gantz; Susan F Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeanette S Brown; L Elaine Waetjen; Leslee L Subak; David H Thom; Stephen Van den Eeden; Eric Vittinghoff Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Martin McCarthy; Olga Jonasson; Chih-Hung Chang; A Simon Pickard; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; James Gibbs; Perry Edelman; Robert Fitzgibbons; Leigh Neumayer Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Maura K Whiteman; Susan D Hillis; Denise J Jamieson; Brian Morrow; Michelle N Podgornik; Kate M Brett; Polly A Marchbanks Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Bryan N Brown; Deepa Mani; Alexis L Nolfi; Rui Liang; Steven D Abramowitch; Pamela A Moalli Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Lee A Learman; Robert L Summitt; R Edward Varner; S Gene McNeeley; Deborah Goodman-Gruen; Holly E Richter; Feng Lin; Jonathan Showstack; Christine C Ireland; Eric Vittinghoff; Stephen B Hulley; A Eugene Washington Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Megan S Bradley; Jennifer A Bickhaus; Cindy L Amundsen; Laura K Newcomb; Tracy Truong; Alison C Weidner; Nazema Y Siddiqui Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Alexandra Dubinskaya; Diego Hernandez-Aranda; Dorothy B Wakefield; Jonathan P Shepherd Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-06-29 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Charles W Nager; Anthony G Visco; Holly E Richter; Charles R Rardin; Rebecca G Rogers; Heidi S Harvie; Halina M Zyczynski; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Donna Mazloomdoost; Scott Grey; Amaanti Sridhar; Dennis Wallace Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lauren Giugale; Amaanti Sridhar; Kimberly L Ferrante; Yuko M Komesu; Isuzu Meyer; Ariana L Smith; Deborah Myers; Anthony G Visco; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Donna Mazloomdoost; Marie Gantz; Halina M Zyczynski Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Charles W Nager; Anthony G Visco; Holly E Richter; Charles R Rardin; Yuko Komesu; Heidi S Harvie; Halina M Zyczynski; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Donna Mazloomdoost; Amaanti Sridhar; Sonia Thomas Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Emily S Lukacz; Amaanti Sridhar; Christopher J Chermansky; David D Rahn; Heidi S Harvie; Marie G Gantz; R Edward Varner; Nicole B Korbly; Donna Mazloomdoost Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 7.623