MedPath

Affixing Polypropylene Mesh Using Barbed Suture (Quill™ Srs) During Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Randomized Controlled Trial (Quill Lsc)

Not Applicable
Completed
Conditions
Prolapse
Interventions
Procedure: Quill suture vs. Interrupted suture
Registration Number
NCT01551992
Lead Sponsor
Kaiser Permanente
Brief Summary

1.0 STUDY OBJECTIVE 1.1 PRIMARY OBJECTIVE - To compare two methods of polypropylene mesh attachment during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC): running technique using self-anchoring 1 barbed delayed absorbable suture (Quill™ SRS, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vancouver, Canada) versus interrupted technique using 0 non-barbed delayed absorbable suture (PDS II™, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA).

1.2 SECONDARY OBJECTIVE - To compare laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy anatomic failure rates at 6 months post-operative follow-up using self-anchoring 1 barbed delayed absorbable suture (Quill™ SRS, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vancouver, Canada) versus 0 non-barbed delayed absorbable suture (PDS II™, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA). The investigators will also assess mesh erosion rates, costs, and surgeon satisfaction rates.

2.0 HYPOTHESIS 2.1 Primary: 2.1.a. Attachment of mesh using the running technique with self-anchoring 1 barbed delayed absorbable suture (Quill™ SRS, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vancouver, Canada) will be faster than the standard fixation interrupted technique using 0 non-barbed delayed absorbable suture (PDS II™, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA).

2.2 Secondary: 2.2.a. Attachment of mesh using the running technique with self-anchoring 1 barbed delayed absorbable suture (Quill™ SRS, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vancouver, Canada) will be less costly than the standard fixation interrupted technique using 0 non-barbed delayed absorbable suture (PDS II™, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA).

2.2.b. Failure rates and mesh erosion rates for each technique will be equally low.

2.2.c. Surgeons will prefer the barbed running technique over the interrupted technique based on subjective surgeon satisfaction questionnaires.

Detailed Description

Not available

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
COMPLETED
Sex
Female
Target Recruitment
32
Inclusion Criteria

Not provided

Exclusion Criteria
  • Decline to participate
  • Pregnant or contemplating future pregnancy
  • Unable to participate in the informed consent process

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
PARALLEL
Arm && Interventions
GroupInterventionDescription
Interrupted sutureQuill suture vs. Interrupted sutureinterrupted technique using 0 non-barbed delayed absorbable suture (PDS II™, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA)
Quill sutureQuill suture vs. Interrupted sutureself-anchoring 1 barbed delayed absorbable suture (Quill™ SRS, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vancouver, Canada)
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Mesh attachment intervalIntraoperatively

To compare two methods of polypropylene mesh attachment during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC): running technique using self-anchoring 1 barbed delayed absorbable suture (Quill™ SRS, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vancouver, Canada) versus interrupted technique using 0 non-barbed delayed absorbable suture (PDS II™, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA)in terms of time.

Secondary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Anatomic outcomes using the two suture types6 months post-operatively

To compare laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy anatomic failure rates at 6 months post-operative follow-up using self-anchoring 1 barbed delayed absorbable suture (Quill™ SRS, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vancouver, Canada) versus 0 non-barbed delayed absorbable suture (PDS II™, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA). We will also assess mesh erosion rates, costs, and surgeon satisfaction rates.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Kaiser Permanente San Diego

🇺🇸

San Diego, California, United States

© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved by MedPath