Prolapse
Conditions
Keywords
Sutures, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Sacrocolpopexy, Laparoscopy
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.
Interventions
PROCEDUREQuill suture vs. Interrupted suture
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).
Sponsors
Kaiser Permanente
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* \>18 years old * Undergoing LSC with or without other procedures for pelvic organ prolapse or incontinence * Willing to return for follow-up visits * Written informed consent obtained from each subject * Must be having a robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
Exclusion criteria
* Decline to participate * Pregnant or contemplating future pregnancy * Unable to participate in the informed consent process
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 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
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed