Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 12:14 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-02-20 @ 6:45 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01846858
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2014-12-19
First Post:
2013-05-01
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Histological Characterization of Vaginal Cuff Tissue Using Different Energy Sources During Robotic Hysterectomy
Sponsor:
Mayo Clinic
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Histological Characterization of Vaginal Cuff Tissue Using Different Energy Sources During Robotic Hysterectomy
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2014-12
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
Vaginal cuff dehiscence, a rare complication of gynecologic surgeries, can be devastating, particularly when associated with bowel evisceration. A review of records from 1970 - 2001 at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN revealed a low incidence (0.032%) of vaginal cuff dehiscence after pelvic operation via both abdominal and vaginal approaches3. At a single, large, tertiary care facility, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) was associated with an increased incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence compared to other approaches (4.93% vs. 0.29% TVH, and 0.12% TAH)1. A review of our robotic experience revealed a vaginal cuff dehiscence incidence of 4.1%, which is comparable to the previously reported incidence for TLH2. An increasing number of laparoscopic hysterectomies are being performed in the United States with the rate of laparoscopic procedures increasing from 0.3% in 1990 to 11.8% in 20034. With 11.8% of 600,000 annual hysterectomies being performed via the laparoscopic route in the United States, there would be an estimated 3,400 cases of vaginal cuff dehiscence per year.
The cause of the higher rate of vaginal cuff dehiscence in both laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies is currently unknown. One of the major differences between the laparoscopic and robotic approach as compared to the vaginal/abdominal route is the method by which the cervix is amputated from the vagina. With the vaginal and abdominal approaches, a colpotomy is made sharply with a knife or scissors. In contrast, the colpotomy is performed with electrocoagulation with the laparoscopic and robotic routes. One theory to explain the increased dehiscence incidence is the lateral thermal effects of electrocoagulation on the vaginal cuff which may adversely affect tissue healing.
This study aims primarily to shed light on the etiology of vaginal cuff healing after a robotic total hysterectomy. This will be done by comparing the extent of thermal injury at the cellular level using monopolar vs CO2 laser at the time of the colpotomy.
The cause of the higher rate of vaginal cuff dehiscence in both laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies is currently unknown. One of the major differences between the laparoscopic and robotic approach as compared to the vaginal/abdominal route is the method by which the cervix is amputated from the vagina. With the vaginal and abdominal approaches, a colpotomy is made sharply with a knife or scissors. In contrast, the colpotomy is performed with electrocoagulation with the laparoscopic and robotic routes. One theory to explain the increased dehiscence incidence is the lateral thermal effects of electrocoagulation on the vaginal cuff which may adversely affect tissue healing.
This study aims primarily to shed light on the etiology of vaginal cuff healing after a robotic total hysterectomy. This will be done by comparing the extent of thermal injury at the cellular level using monopolar vs CO2 laser at the time of the colpotomy.
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: