ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Comparison of Laparoscopic to Vaginal Surgical Repair for Uterine Prolapse
Investigators intend to conduct a prospective randomized trial to compare vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral colposuspension to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with sacrocervicopexy. Both surgeries are minimally-invasive surgical standards of care for uterine prolapse repair. Nobody knows if one procedure is superior to the other, as they have not been compared directly. The investigators hypothesize that there is no difference in objective, subjective, or cost-effectiveness between the two procedures for up to two years after surgery.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Hysterectomy Versus Uterine Preservation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery#1292561
- GYNECARE PROSIMA* Procedure Versus Modified Total Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery for Uterine Prolapse Stage III#1127176
- Sacrocolpopexy Versus Sacro-spinous Fixation for Prolapse Treatment#890817
- Comparison of Two Apical Repair Methods in Women Undergoing Repairs for Prolapse#1211101
- Transvaginal Human Acellular Dermal Matrix for Prolapse Treatment#886858
Record · ID 1259945
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive