Shawn Menefee1, Holly E Richter2, Deborah Myers3, Alison Weidner4, Pamela Moalli5, Heidi Harvie6, David Rahn7, Peter Jeppson8, Marie Paraiso9, Sonia Thomas10, Donna Mazloomdoost11. 1. From the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente San Diego, San Diego, CA. 2. Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 3. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brown University, Providence, RI. 4. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 5. Women's Center for Bladder and Pelvic Health, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh. 6. Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA. 7. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX. 8. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New; Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. 9. Center for Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 10. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC. 11. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to present the design of the Apical Suspension Repair for Vault Prolapse in a Three-Arm Randomized Trial (ASPIRe), which compares the efficacy and safety of 3 apical repairs: native tissue (NT) transvaginal repair, transvaginal mesh, and sacral colpopexy. METHODS: Patient selection criteria, primary and secondary outcome measures including patient-reported outcome questionnaires, masking, surgeon certification, procedure standardization, adverse events collection and adjudication, and cost analysis will be described for this multi-centered randomized trial. Given the unique risks/benefits of each technique, a noninferiority design will be used to compare apical transvaginal mesh to mesh sacral colpopexy. A superiority design will be used to compare the 2 mesh repairs to NT transvaginal apical repair. Survival analysis will be used to assess a composite primary outcome for success composed of a subjective measure (no prolapse symptoms), objective measure (no prolapse beyond the hymen), and no prolapse retreatment, with a minimum follow-up of 36 months. Secondary outcome measures collected every 6 months include assessment of validated general and condition-specific quality of life measures, global impression of improvement, satisfaction and regret, body image, and sexual function. RESULTS: Randomization and surgical treatment of 360 participants are complete, and the study is in the follow-up phase. CONCLUSIONS: This report will provide valuable insight on the design of a novel 3-arm surgical trial using mesh versus NT to repair vaginal vault prolapse. This trial will provide level 1 evidence on the risks and benefits of mesh augmented versus NT apical repairs.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to present the design of the Apical Suspension Repair for Vault Prolapse in a Three-Arm Randomized Trial (ASPIRe), which compares the efficacy and safety of 3 apical repairs: native tissue (NT) transvaginal repair, transvaginal mesh, and sacral colpopexy. METHODS: Patient selection criteria, primary and secondary outcome measures including patient-reported outcome questionnaires, masking, surgeon certification, procedure standardization, adverse events collection and adjudication, and cost analysis will be described for this multi-centered randomized trial. Given the unique risks/benefits of each technique, a noninferiority design will be used to compare apical transvaginal mesh to mesh sacral colpopexy. A superiority design will be used to compare the 2 mesh repairs to NT transvaginal apical repair. Survival analysis will be used to assess a composite primary outcome for success composed of a subjective measure (no prolapse symptoms), objective measure (no prolapse beyond the hymen), and no prolapse retreatment, with a minimum follow-up of 36 months. Secondary outcome measures collected every 6 months include assessment of validated general and condition-specific quality of life measures, global impression of improvement, satisfaction and regret, body image, and sexual function. RESULTS: Randomization and surgical treatment of 360 participants are complete, and the study is in the follow-up phase. CONCLUSIONS: This report will provide valuable insight on the design of a novel 3-arm surgical trial using mesh versus NT to repair vaginal vault prolapse. This trial will provide level 1 evidence on the risks and benefits of mesh augmented versus NT apical repairs.
Authors: Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark D Walters; Raymond R Rackley; Seham Melek; Cathy Hugney Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Manhan K Vu; Juraj Letko; Kelly Jirschele; Adam Gafni-Kane; Aimee Nguyen; Honyan Du; Roger P Goldberg Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Charles W Nager; Halina Zyczynski; Rebecca G Rogers; Matthew D Barber; Holly E Richter; Anthony G Visco; Charles R Rardin; Heidi Harvie; Dennis Wallace; Susan F Meikle Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 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: Marie Fidela R Paraiso; J Eric Jelovsek; Anna Frick; Chi Chung Grace Chen; Matthew D Barber Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Linda Brubaker; Halina M Zyczynski; Geoffrey Cundiff; Holly Richter; Marie Gantz; Paul Fine; Shawn Menefee; Beri Ridgeway; Anthony Visco; Lauren Klein Warren; Min Zhang; Susan Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gouri B Diwadkar; Matthew D Barber; Benjamin Feiner; Christopher Maher; J Eric Jelovsek Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 7.661