Vaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Robotic-assisted Abdominal Mesh Surgery in the Treatment of Apical Prolapse - Prospective Randomized Non-inferiority Study

Overview

The goal of this study is to compare vaginal mesh surgery with abdominal robotic-assisted mesh surgery for the treatment of genital prolapse in women. The main questions it seeks to answer are: * Is the objective cure rate for vaginal mesh surgery non-inferior to that of the abdominal approach? * Is the use of vaginal mesh as safe as abdominal mesh?

This is a prospective, randomized non-inferiority study designed to compare the objective outcomes of treating apical compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using robot-assisted abdominal mesh surgery versus vaginal mesh surgery. Additionally, clinical parameters such as mesh erosion, pain, and symptom-specific quality of life will be assessed utilizing an internationally validated instrument adapted for Portuguese-speaking populations. Patients diagnosed with stage II or higher apical compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP), with or without a uterus, who require surgical intervention and provide informed consent will be randomized through REDCap® software to determine the surgical approach. The interventions under investigation include: vaginal prolapse repair with placement of the Splentis® mesh (Promedon®, Córdoba, Argentina) - not FDA approved, comprising anterior colporrhaphy combined with suspension of the cervix or vaginal vault, with bilateral anchoring of the mesh to the sacrospinous ligaments; and robot-assisted laparoscopic abdominal repair employing the Upsylon® mesh (Boston Scientific®, USA) - FDA approved - via colpocervicopexy, involving mesh fixation to the anterior and superior vaginal walls as well as the sacral promontory. The sample size was calculated to assess the non-inferiority of the vaginal approach compared with the abdominal approach. Assuming an objective cure rate (stage 0 or I) of 90% for the abdominal group and 80% for the vaginal group, with a two-sided significance level of p \< 0.05 and an anticipated loss to follow-up of up to 10% in each group, a minimum of 43 participants per arm (total of 86 patients) was required. The calculation was based on detecting a non-inferiority margin considered clinically acceptable for the primary outcome.