Outcomes following vaginal prolapse repair and mid urethral sling (OPUS) trial

Abstract

Background The primary aims of this trial are to determine whether the use of a concomitant prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure may prevent stress urinary incontinence symptom development in women undergoing vaginal prolapse surgery and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic approach.

Purpose To present the rationale and design of a randomized controlled surgical trial (RCT), the Outcomes following vaginal Prolapse repair and mid Urethral Sling (OPUS) Trial highlighting the challenges in the design and implementation.

Methods The challenges of implementing this surgical trial combined with a cost-effectiveness study and patient preference group are discussed including the study design, ethical issues regarding use of sham incision, maintaining the masking of study staff, and pragmatic difficulties encountered in the collection of cost data. The trial is conducted by the NICHD-funded Pelvic Floor Disorders Network.

Results The ongoing OPUS trial started enrollment in May 2007 with a planned accrual of 350. The use of sham incision was generally well accepted but the collection of cost data using conventional billing forms was found to potentially unmask key study personnel. This necessitated changes in the study forms and planned timing for collection of cost data. To date, the enrollment to the patient preference group has been lower than the limit established by the protocol suggesting a willingness on the part of women to participate in the randomization. Limitations Given the invasive nature of surgical intervention trials, potential participants may be reluctant to accept random assignment, potentially impacting generalizability.

Conclusion Findings from the OPUS trial will provide important information that will help surgeons to better counsel women on the benefits and risks of concomitant prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure at the time of vaginal surgery for prolapse. The implementation of the OPUS trial has necessitated that investigators consider ethical issues up front, remain flexible with regards to data collection and be constantly aware of unanticipated opportunities for unmasking. Future surgical trials should be aware of potential challenges in maintaining masking and collection of cost-related information. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 162—171. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Olsen AL , Smith VJ , Bergstrom JO et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89: 501-6.

Rosenzweig BA , Pushkin S. , Blumenfeld D. et al. Prevalence of abnormal urodynamic test results in continent women with severe genitourinary prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 539-42.

Reena C. , Kekre AN , Kekre N. Occult stress incontinence in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2007; 97: 31-4.

Brubaker L. , Cundiff GW , Fine P. et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med 2006; 13: 1557-66.

Meschia M. , Pifarotti P. , Spennacchio M. et al. A randomized comparison of tension-free vaginal tape and endopelvic fascia plication in women with genital prolapse and occult stress urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190: 609-13.

Roovers Jpwr , van Laar Joeh , Loffeld C. et al. Does urodynamic investigation improve outcome in patients undergoing prolapse surgery? Neurourol Urodyn 2007; 26: 170-5.

Barber MD , Kuchibhatla MN , Pieper CF et al. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 1388-95.

Bump RC , Mattiasson A. , Bo K. et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 10-7.

Ware Jr JE , Sherbourne CD The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-83.

10.

Shaw JW , Johnson JA , Coons SJ US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005; 43: 203-20.

11.

Sandvik H. , Espuna M. , Hunskaar S. Validity of the incontinence severity index: comparison with pad-weighing tests. Int Urogyn J 2006; 17: 520-4.

12.

Rogers RG , Kammerer-Doak D. , Darrow A. et al. Sexual function after surgery for stress urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse: a multicenter prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 206-10.

13.

Wren PA , Janz NK , Brubaker L. et al. Development of the Measure of Adaptations for Pelvic Symptoms (MAPS): the importance of incorporating the female patient's voice. Appl Res Qual Life 2006; 1: 239-51.

14.

Hartanto VH , DiPiazza D. , Ankem MK et al. Comparison of recovery from postoperative pain utilizing two sling techniques. Can J Urol 2003; 10: 1759-63.

15.

Yalcin I. , Bump RC Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 98-101.

16.

Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. Fee schedule - general information. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/FeeScheduleGenInfo, 2007.

17.

PDR Editorial Staff. Drug Topics Red Book, Thompson Healthcare, 2007 .

18.

Gold MR , Siegel JE , Russell LB et al. Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1996.

19.

Rubin DB Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. Wiley, 1987.

20.

van Hout BA , Al MJ , Gordon GS et al. Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309-19.

21.

Misrai V. , Roupret M. , Cour F. et al. De novo urinary stress incontinence after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy . BJU Int 2008; 101: 594-7.

22.

Chaikin DC , Groutz A. , Blaivas JG Predicting the need for anti-incontinence surgery in continent women undergoing repair of severe urogenital prolapse. J Urol 2000; 163: 531-4.

23.

Romanzi LJ , Chaikin DC , Blaivas JG The effect of genital prolapse on voiding. J Urol 1999; 161: 581-6.

24.

Horng S. , Miller FG Is placebo surgery unethical? N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 137-9.

25.

Horng S. , Miller FG Ethical framework for the use of sham procedures in clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: S126-S130.

26.

Anger JT , Saigal CS , Madison R. et al. Increasing costs of urinary incontinence among female Medicare beneficiaries. J Urol 2006; 176: 247-51.

27.

O'Sullivan AK , Thompson D. , Drummond MF Collection of health-economic data alongside clinical trials: is there a future for piggyback evaluation? Value Health 2005; 8: 67-79.

28.

Torgerson DJ , Sibbald B.

Understanding controlled trials. What is a patient preference trial?

Brit Med J 1998; 316: 360.

29.

Cetinel B. , Demirkesen O. Risk factors influencing the complication rates of tension-free vaginal tape-type procedures. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2005; 17: 530-4.

Outcomes following vaginal prolapse repair and mid urethral sling (OPUS) trial—design and methods

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References