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

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Prolapse

• 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

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2010-11
• Study First Submitted: 2012-03-09
• Study First Submitted QC: 2012-03-12
• Study First Posted: 2012-03-13
• Primary Completion: 2014-07
• Study Completion: 2014-07
• Status Verified: 2014-09
• Last Update Submitted: 2014-09-15
• Last Update Posted: 2014-09-16

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

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Mesh attachment interval	Intraoperatively	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

Name	Time	Method
Anatomic outcomes using the two suture types	6 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