5 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
The purpose of this study is to compare two types of surgery for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse to determine which surgery works best from a patient's perspective and has the lowest number of short-term and long-term complications.
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn about how Urogynecology patients use Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbots like ChatGPT, and how it affects healthcare decision making. The main question\[s\] it aims to answer are: * How does the AI Chatbot affect participants' understanding of diagnoses and participant satisfaction with a urogynecology consultation? * How accurate is the chatbot-provided diagnosis and counseling information? Participants will be asked to use the ChatGPT chatbot and ask it questions about the main problem the participant is seeing the doctor for, and will also be asked to fill out some questionnaires. Researchers will compare using the Chatbot before the visit, after the visit, or not at all to see if the way participants understand the information changes based on timing of use.
The primary purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness and safety of two transvaginal apical suspension strategies for uterovaginal prolapse: a mesh augmented hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS). The primary aim is to determine whether treatment success in women who undergo the above strategies differ at time points through 3 years. A supplemental study investigates anterior vaginal wall movement resulting from descent or rotation of the vaginal apex and/or anterior vaginal elongation, in women in both of the study arms of SUPeR.
Sacrospinous ligament suspension (SSLS) was first described in 1958. It is commonly performed for correction of apical prolapse. A combination of delayed absorbable and/or permanent sutures are commonly used for the procedure. When permanent sutures are used, risk of suture-related complications is present and patients may require suture removal. In available literature, there is limited data comparing the efficacy and suture-related complications when using different types of sutures. A previous randomized controlled trial demonstrated that using an absorbable suture is equally efficacious as delayed absorbable sutures in SSLS. However, there is no comparison to absorbable versus permanent suture. Our aim is to compare the absorbable suture versus permanent suture for treating pelvic organ prolapse and to compare suture-related complications. Our primary outcome is comparing POPQ point C at 12 month follow up for absorbable vs permanent suture. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to absorbable or permanent suture. Follow up will occur at 2-4 weeks, 12 weeks and 12 months after the surgery.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate surgical success or failure one year after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.