Lessons learnt from the multi-centre LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA) randomised controlled trial.

Abstract

Background: The LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA) randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH) closed prematurely on the grounds of futility. Here we identify the challenges faced and lessons learnt.

Objectives: To explore the views and experiences of clinical/research staff in order to understand how these might act as barriers to trial participation and recruitment.

Materials and methods: Review of the trial progress and collation of the views and experiences of clinical/ research staff on all aspects of the trial. Data were collected from transcribed conversations, email, phone, or video conferencing interactions and analysed descriptively.

Main outcome measures: Site set-up milestones, recruitment rates and reasons provided by clinical/research staff for site's declining to participate. Opinions, preferences and experiences of clinicians/researchers and challenges to participation and recruitment.

Results: The mean time from initial site contact to opening was 253 days and 68 days to randomise their first participant. 265 patients were screened from 13 sites over 13 months, 154 were eligible, and 75 (59%) were randomised. Of the 53 not randomised, 23 (43%) women preferred LH whilst 6 (11%) preferred AH. The main reasons given for failure to recruit or activate set-up in the 21 sites open or in set-up, were lack of research/ clinical capacity imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and lack of clinician equipoise.

Conclusions: The main reasons for the LAVA trial failure were lack of equipoise amongst surgeons and the adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical/research services.

What is new?: Surgeons' preference for laparoscopic hysterectomy is not shared by most patients. Many patients prefer an open hysterectomy to a laparoscopic one.