Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT03634306
NCT03634306CompletedNot Applicable

A Randomized, Controlled Study Evaluating The Effectiveness Of The Ultravision Visual Field Clearing System in Laparoscopic Hysterectomy and Myomectomy

Mercy Research1 site in 1 country35 target enrollmentStarted: October 11, 2018Last updated:
Conditions
Interventions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Completed
Enrollment
35
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
Quality of Surgical Field Visualization

Study Overview

Brief Summary

This is a prospective blinded, randomized controlled study. The study will include three study arms:

Patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomies will be randomized to one of either "Ultravision" (study arm 1) or "no Ultravision" (study arm 2, i.e. the current standard of care) groups. The study will be conducted blinded to the investigator during the procedure through patient discharge. The Ultravision system will be present in both, with the generator covered (not seen by user) and either on or off depending on the randomization. 30 patients will be enrolled, 15 per group. Five patients undergoing myomectomy will have their procedures conducted using the Ultravision (study Arm 3).

Ultravision is cleared for use in all laparoscopic surgery i.e. including laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy, in the United States. However, the clinical benefits arising from its use in gynecology have not yet been quantitatively assessed and published in an independent medical journal.

Study Purpose:

There are three main study objectives

  1. To evaluate the impact of use of Ultravision device during laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy on the quality of visualization in the laparoscopic field
  2. To evaluate the impact of use of Ultravision device during laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy on procedural characteristics
  3. To evaluate the impact of use of Ultravision device during laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy on clinical outcomes.

Detailed Description

Background: The smoke generated by electrosurgical devices in the process of dissection of tissues during laparoscopy can obscure the surgical visual field. Laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic myomectomy are procedures that produce a considerable amount of smoke, which impedes the operating surgeon. It is often necessary to suspend the surgery to allow the smoke to dissipate, or more commonly open a laparoscopic port to vent the smoke into the room, adding to the operating time. It is also common to remove the laparoscope to clean the lens because it can be soiled by the smoke as well. In order to enhance the dissipation of smoke and maintain an adequate pneumoperitoneum it is often necessary to increase the flow of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the insufflator. Surgical smoke handling during laparoscopic surgery results in an increase of the known risks to the patient of using excessive CO2; as well exposing the operating room staff to the smoke which may create a potential health concern. The electrostatic-precipitation of laparoscopic smoke is a new technique, marketed under the name Ultravision©, making it possible to precipitate the smoke as it is created, thereby actively eliminating it from the field of view. Safety and feasibility studies have been carried out allowing it to be placed on the market in Europe, Japan and the United States. A randomized study of its clinical effectiveness (ref: Ansell J. Surg, Endosc. (2014) 28: 2057-2065) showed that electrostatic-precipitation significantly improved visibility (reduction of visual impairment) and reduced surgery time in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ultravision is cleared for use in all laparoscopic surgery i.e. including laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy, in the United States. However, the clinical benefits arising from its use in gynecology have not yet been quantitatively assessed and published in an independent medical journal.

Study Purpose: here are three main study objectives;

  1. To evaluate the impact of use of Ultravision device during laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy on the quality of visualization in the laparoscopic field
  2. To evaluate the impact of use of Ultravision device during laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy on procedural characteristics
  3. To evaluate the impact of use of Ultravision device during laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy on clinical outcomes.

Primary Hypothesis: The primary hypothesis being tested in this study is that using Ultravision during laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy improves visualization similar to that reported when used in laparoscopic cholecystectomy without the need for CO2 exchange and that, by doing so, the amount of CO2 that the patient is exposed to is reduced compared to the current standard of care.

Secondary hypothesis: There are two aspects to CO2 exposure during laparoscopic surgery: the amount of gas used and the intra-abdominal pressure of the pneumoperitoneum. Ultravision has already been shown in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to minimize the amount of CO2 that a patient is exposed to during laparoscopic surgery because it does not rely on the process of dilution using ongoing CO2 supply from the insufflator. Decreasing the intra-abdominal pressure below the conventional 12-15 mmHg during laparoscopic surgery has been shown by others to lead to improved clinical outcomes in other laparoscopic procedures.

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Masking
Single (Investigator)

Masking Description

Patients will be randomized using a paper envelope system, just prior to surgery. Investigator will not be informed of the randomization assignment until after the patient is discharged (end of follow-up period). A simple envelope system is used. Pre-made study arm assignment envelopes will be created. Envelopes will be opened just prior to the procedure. For patients randomized & withdrawn prior to the procedure or converted to open procedure, replacement envelopes will be added to the envelope pool. To preserve blinding during the procedure, the Ultravision System consumable will be introduced into the patient, generator will appear operational during all procedures. The display will be covered during use so the investigator is not aware the system is on/off. If for any reason un blinding occurs, the reason will be recorded. Study assessments will be collected per protocol, but the data will not be pooled with blinded data for analysis.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages
21 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
Sex
Female
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Inclusion Criteria

  • •Subjects MUST meet all the following:
  • •Is 21 years or older.
  • •Provide written informed consent prior to trial procedures after studies indicate that the patient needs the prescribed procedure.
  • •Agrees to attend all follow-up assessments.
  • •Is clinically indicated to undergo laparoscopic hysterectomy or myomectomy.

Exclusion Criteria

  • •Subjects MUST not have any of the following:
  • •Existing comorbidities that would contraindicate them for laparoscopic surgery.
  • •Be pregnant.

Arms & Interventions

ARM 1

Active Comparator

Laparoscopic hysterectomy with use of the Ultravision System

Intervention: Ultravision System (Device)

ARM 2

Placebo Comparator

Laparoscopic Hysterectomy per Standard of Care/no Ultravision System

Intervention: Laparoscopic Hysterectomy (Procedure)

ARM 3

Active Comparator

Laparoscopic myomectomy with use of the Ultravision System.

Intervention: Ultravision System (Device)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Quality of Surgical Field Visualization

Time Frame: End of procedure

Measure the quality of visualization in the laparoscopic field of view using a 5 point Visual Analog Scale. 0 is visible interference is imperceptible, 2-3 is perceptible to interfering, 4 is interfering, 5 is highly interfering)

Consumed CO2

Time Frame: End of procedure

Amount of CO2 Consumed in liters from placement of all surgical ports to colpotomy (hysterectomy) or closure of last uterine defect (myomectomy)

Secondary Outcomes

  • Temperature at Time 15 Min(Intraoperative)
  • End-Tidal CO2 Level at Time 60(Intraoperative)
  • Number of Participants That Received Post-operative Non-opioid Pain Medication(Post-operative hospitalization)
  • Operative Procedure Disruption(Intraoperative)
  • Intra-abdominal Pressure(End of procedure)
  • Number of Participants With Adjusted Intra-abdominal Pressure(Intraoperative)
  • End-Tidal CO2 Level at Time 15(Intraoperative)
  • Temperature at Time 30 Min(Intraoperative)
  • End-Tidal CO2 Level at Time 45(Intraoperative)
  • Number of Participants With a Hospital Stay Less Than 24 Hours(2 weeks following procedure completion)
  • Number of Participants Reporting Opioid Pain Medication Use at Follow up(2 week follow up visit)
  • Temperature at Time 0 Min(Intraoperative)
  • Temperature at Time 45 Min(Intraoperative)
  • Temperature at Time 60 Min(Intraoperative)
  • End-Tidal CO2 Level at Time 0(Intraoperative)
  • End-Tidal CO2 Level at Time 30(Intraoperative)
  • Duration of Procedure(Intraoperative)
  • Number of Participants That Received Post-operative Opioid Pain Medication(Post-operative hospitalization)
  • Adverse Events Related to Procedure(Intraoperative up to 2 weeks post procedure)
  • Duration of Intra-abdominal Pressure Increase(Intraoperative)
  • Postoperative Pain Numerical Rating Scale(2 weeks following procedure completion)
  • Number of Participants Reporting Non-opioid Pain Medication Use at Follow up(2 week follow up visit)
  • Adverse Events Related to Smoke Clearing Device(Intraoperative up to 2 week follow up visit)
  • Postoperative Pain Numerical Rating Scale(Before hospital discharge)

Investigators

Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

David Levine

Director Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Mercy Research

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials