Gavres, France

Prospective Comparative Study Evaluating the Early Complications of Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performed As an Outpatient Versus an Inpatient Procedure.

Efficacy Investigation of the Medical Device Apneal® on Smartphone for Sleep Apnea-Hypopnea Syndrome Diagnosis

PICO Venous Leg Ulcers (VLU) Reimbursement Study

This is a national, multicentre, pragmatic, randomized, controlled superiority study in which PICO treatment with compression therapy will be compared against Standard of Care (i.e. traditional wound dressings with compression therapy). There will be two parallel treatment arms with a 1:1 allocation ratio and a stratification on wound duration and size. There will be an additional blind assessment for the primary outcome measure. Approximately 37 investigational sites located in France will be enrolled. At each site, a community-based practitioner (general practitioner or specialist) will be enrolled as Principal Investigator (PI). District nurses will be responsible for providing wound care in homecare setting. Duly informed and eligible patients will complete an inclusion visit after which they will enter in a 2-week run-in period in which subjects will be treated with standard of care. After these 2 weeks of run-in, eligibility to randomization will be assessed using pre-specified criteria listed in the protocol, that aim to confirm that the wound does not respond to an adequately conducted standard of care in a satisfactory manner, including subject compliance with compression therapy. Upon randomization, baseline data will be collected, and each subject will be followed-up by the PI for 12 weeks. The PI will conduct 3 visits, i.e., at Week 4 (D28±3 days), Week 8 (D56±3 days), and Week 12 (D84±3 days). Relevant study data will be collected at these visits. In the event wound healing is observed during the 12-week follow-up period of the study either by the PI or by the home care nurse, a Wound Healing Confirmation Visit needs to be conducted with the PI 2 weeks later (±3 days) to confirm that the wound is still healed. Only wounds still healed at the wound healing confirmation visit will be counted as "healed" in the primary endpoint analysis. This means that for wounds that are not healed by Week 12, the visit with the PI at Week 12 will be the final study visit for the subject. Following, because a Wound Healing Confirmation Visit needs to be conducted 2 weeks (±3 days) following the initial observation of wound healing, which can occur at any time throughout the 12 week follow-up period, the Wound Healing Confirmation Visit can occur at any time as well, but at the latest 2 weeks (±3 days) following the visit at Week 12, i.e. at week 14±3 days. In between study visits with the PI, patients are cared for at home by their home care nurse who will also be trained on the study. The study nurse will be collecting study related data as well using a secure mobile application.

Rapid Sequence Intubation and Hemodynamic Disorders in the Operating Room: a Prospective Multicenter Observational Study

Efficacy and Safety of RAdiofrequency Versus HAL- RAR DOppler in Hemorrhoidal Pathology

Ribociclib Real-world Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Among Women With HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer in France

Included patients will be followed until the end of study, death or lost to follow-up even if ribociclib and ET are discontinued. The end of the study is defined as 3 years after the first visit of the last patient included (Last Patient First Visit [LPFV]). The total duration of the study will be 4 years and half (18 months of inclusion + 3 years of follow-up). Thus, a patient included at the beginning of the inclusion period will be followed for 4 years and half and a patient included at the end of the inclusion period will be followed for at least 3 years.

Comparison of Radical Prostatectomy Performed by Robot-assisted Laparoscopy or Conventional Laparoscopy or by Laparotomy

Minimally invasive surgery has developed widely since the 1980s and has revolutionized the practices of surgeons. In urology, the development of laparoscopy and then robot-assisted surgery has considerably improved the management of pathologies. In France, as in all the countries concerned, the spread of robotic surgery has taken place without prior studies validating this new technology, nor organizational rules in terms of quality and access to care. The report of the Haute Autorité de Santé dated November 2016 underlines the weakness of the methodological quality of studies and meta-analyzes evaluating robot-assisted total prostatectomy compared to other surgical techniques by laparotomy or conventional laparoscopy. It therefore appears important to evaluate in a large study the interest of this technique in order to help the authorities to decide on the real benefit of this technology and to provide reliable answers to the patients.