← Eichor
Study identifier: NCT04478747 Synced from ClinicalTrials.gov · July 29, 2026
● Recruiting

Transvaginal Mesh vs. Laparoscopic Colposacropexy- Study

Condition: Prolapse, Vaginal Vault  ·  Sponsor: Helsinki University Central Hospital

PhaseNA
Planned participants318
Who can joinFemale, 18 Years to 99 Years
Healthy volunteersYes

About this study

The main objective of the study is to compare subjective efficacy of trans vaginal mesh and laparoscopic colposakropexy (CSP) in women with an apical prolapse. The CSP group is further divided into two sub-groups; one where the mesh fixation is only at the apical part of the vagina, and another where the fixation is also extended to the levator plane. The secondary outcomes are safety (peri- and post-surgery complications, pain, erosion), objective efficacy (simplified POP-Q), and re-operation rate. Subjective outcome also includes the assessment of sexual satisfaction. Cost-effectiveness is studied by comparing both direct costs and QALYs.

This description comes directly from the study's public registry record.

Talk to the study team

Tomi Mikkola, Prof.  ·  +358504271187  ·  tomi.mikkola@hus.fi

Camilla Isaksson, MD  ·  camilla.isaksson@hus.fi

Always discuss trial participation with your own doctor first.

Locations (1)

Helsinki NaistenklinikkaHelsinki, FinlandRecruiting

Follow this study

Get one email when the public record changes — results posted, or the study's status changes. Nothing else, ever.

We email about this public record only. Unsubscribe anytime with one click. Never medical advice.

Is this your study? This page was generated automatically from the public registry record. Sponsors can claim it — free — to add branding and verified contact routing. Claim this page →

This page is independently generated by Eichor from the public ClinicalTrials.gov record and re-synced daily. It is not the sponsor's official website unless claimed. Nothing here is medical advice; eligibility is always determined by the study team — talk to your own doctor first.

Source record: clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04478747