VaST (Variation in Surgical Technique)
Research type
Research Study
Full title
How does the surgical technique of a non graft pelvic organ prolapse repair vary and does the variation affect surgical outcome?
IRAS ID
123861
Contact name
Fiona Reid
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Central Manchester Foundation Trust
Research summary
The proposed study is in two parts. Part One will look for variation in surgeons' technique for non-graft pelvic organ prolapse surgery. If variation is detected then the part two will compare the success, both symptomatic and anatomical, of the techniques used.
The first part of the study will be a prospective qualitative study to identify how surgical technique of non-graft prolapse repair varies between different surgeons who practice in the UK.
To find out how surgical technique varies, the surgeons will be interviews about their surgical techniques. To ensure that there is no variation in terminology the techniques described will be observed. Field notes about terminology will be made and a video of the surgical technique will be recorded. The interviews will be audio recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions will be analysed along with the video to identify categories of surgical technique. Once all of the interviews have been completed an attempt will be made to reduce the number of techniques used by all surgeons into a few major themes.
The surgeons recruited into part one of this study will be those who have recruited women into a multicentre randomised control trial, PROSPECT (Prolapse Surgery: Pragmatic evaluation and randomised controlled trials). PROSPECT compared the outcomes of prolapse repair using patients' own tissue (non-graft) and graft (mesh) repair.
The second part of the VaST study will be qualitative. The anonymised outcome data from PROSPECT will be used to compare the relative success of the themes of surgical techniques identified in part one of VaST. The main outcome measure used from PROSPECT data will be the patient reported outcomes measures (symptoms of prolapse and quality of life outcome).
REC name
North East - Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
13/NE/0158
Date of REC Opinion
29 May 2013
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion