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

Kaiser Permanente

Status: Completed

Conditions: Prolapse

Treatments: Procedure: Quill suture vs. Interrupted suture

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT01551992

Quill LSC

Details and patient eligibility

About

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.

Enrollment: 32 patients

Sex: Female

Ages: 18+ years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

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

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Double Blind

---

32 participants in 2 patient groups

Interrupted suture

Active Comparator group

Description:

interrupted technique using 0 non-barbed delayed absorbable suture (PDS II™, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA)

Treatment:

Procedure: Quill suture vs. Interrupted suture

Quill suture

Active Comparator group

Description:

self-anchoring 1 barbed delayed absorbable suture (Quill™ SRS, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vancouver, Canada)

Treatment:

Procedure: Quill suture vs. Interrupted suture