LAparoscopic Preventive PRErectal Mesh (LAPREM)

May 20, 2026 updated by: University Hospital, Lille

Non-inferiority Randomized Double Blind Controlled Trial Comparing Results of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy With or Without Preventive Prerectal Mesh in Women Operated for Urogenital Prolapse Without Significant Posterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse

Urogenital prolapse is a frequent and invalidating pathology in women, involving the anterior vaginal wall and the uterus in most cases. Posterior vaginal wall prolapse is present in only 50% of cases. Surgery is an option for women with troublesome prolapse. A woman's lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery by the age of 80 is around 19%. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) with synthetic non-absorbable mesh is considered the gold standard, with a composite success rate of 85% at one year (Prospere study). Based on early experience and historical habits, a prerectal mesh was used to be systematically placed in the rectovaginal space, in addition to the anterior and apical mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space, in order to prevent de-novo posterior prolapse (reported rates up to 33%).

The benefit of preventive prerectal mesh is questionned on the basis of a single retrospective study comparing 68 LS with double-mesh (anterior & posterior, DM) to 32 LS with a single anterior mesh (SAM): posterior recurrence rates were respectively 5.9 vs. 31.3% (p<0,01), and total recurrence rates 16.2 vs. 43.8% (p<0.01). However, as this difference was not significant in the subgroup of patients without associated cervicocystopexy, the authors concluded that the risk of posterior failure was only due to the cervicocystopexy itself (anti-urinary incontinence procedure which has been abandoned since).

On the other hand, a prerectal mesh increases the risk for specific complications: rectal injury (up to 3%), anal pain (up to 25%), mesh exposition (up to 2%). Furthermore the posterior mesh increases the procedure by a minimum of 30 minutes (Robolaps study, unpublished data). The rate of de-novo obstructed defecation after LS with prerectal mesh is reported up to 25%. It could be explained by the mesh itself, but also by nerve injuries during the dissection of the rectovaginal space and rectal stalks.

Study Overview

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

834

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

      • Clermont-Ferrand, France
        • Recruiting
        • Hopital Estaing
      • Dunkirk, France
        • Recruiting
        • CH Dunkerque
      • La Rochelle, France
        • Recruiting
        • Hôpital Saint-Louis - La Rochelle
      • Le Mans, France
        • Recruiting
        • Clinique du Pré
      • Lille, France, 59037
        • Recruiting
        • Hop Jeanne de Flandre Chu Lille
        • Contact:
          • Phone Number: 0320445962
      • Lille, France, 59037
        • Recruiting
        • Hopital Saint Vincent - Saint Antoine
        • Contact:
          • Phone Number: 0320445962
      • Nice, France
        • Recruiting
        • CHU De Nice Hopital De l'Archet
      • Nîmes, France
        • Recruiting
        • Chu Nimes - Nimes
      • Poissy, France
        • Recruiting
        • Chi Poissy St Germain Site de Poissy

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

40 years to 75 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Women with a urogenital prolapse (anterior wall and/or uterus or vaginal apex) stage = 2 (Ba and/or C points ≥ - 1 cm using the POP-Q system),
  • without significant posterior vaginal wall prolapse (Bp < -1 cm when apical prolapse is reduced using a retractor leaving the posterior vaginal wall free),

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous surgical repair for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
  • Any associated prolapse requiring any non-authorized additional surgical repair (Authorized additional surgical procedures are hysterectomy, ovariectomy, adnexectomy, salpingectomy, myomectomy, or suburethral vaginal tape.)
  • Wish for future pregnancy
  • Lack of health insurance
  • Woman not reading French or unable to consent
  • Woman under law protection

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Single-Anterior-Mesh, SAM
laparoscopic sacropexy is only performed with the anterior mes
Sham Comparator: Double-Mesh, DM
laparoscopic sacropexy is performed using two synthetic non-absorbable meshes, both sutured to the promontory (Double-Mesh, DM): one mesh is placed in the vesicovaginal space and sutured to the uterine cervix or vaginal apex, and one mesh is placed in the rectovaginal space

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Composite criteria of success at 2 years follow-up
Time Frame: at 2 years after the intervention
Composite criteria of success at 2 years follow-up: no symptom of vaginal bulge, no prolapse beyond the hymen (>0 cm), no reintervention for prolapse recurrence. Its advantage is that it considers only recurrences that are symptomatic or needing a reintervention. It is strongly linked with women satisfaction after prolapse surgery.
at 2 years after the intervention

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Anatomical results
Time Frame: at 2 years
Anatomical results will be based on clinical evaluation of patients at 2 years follow-up using the POP-Q system, with a specific evaluation of posterior vaginal wall with measures of the Bp point
at 2 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Jean-Philippe LUCOT, MD,PhD, University Hospital, Lille

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

September 11, 2019

Primary Completion (Estimated)

December 1, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 1, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

December 3, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

December 3, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

December 5, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

May 22, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 20, 2026

Last Verified

May 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Subscribe