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

This study is currently recruiting participants.
Verified March 2012 by Kaiser Permanente
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Kaiser Permanente
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT01551992
First received: March 9, 2012
Last updated: March 12, 2012
Last verified: March 2012

March 9, 2012
March 12, 2012
November 2010
July 2012   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Mesh attachment interval [ Time Frame: Intraoperatively ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
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.
Same as current
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01551992 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
Anatomic outcomes using the two suture types [ Time Frame: 6 months post-operatively ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
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.
Same as current
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
Affixing Polypropylene Mesh Using Barbed Suture (Quill™ Srs) During Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Randomized Controlled Trial (Quill Lsc)
Affixing Polypropylene Mesh Using Barbed Suture (Quill™ Srs) During Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Randomized Controlled Trial

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.

Not Provided
Interventional
Not Provided
Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Prolapse
Procedure: Quill 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).
  • Active Comparator: Interrupted suture
    interrupted technique using 0 non-barbed delayed absorbable suture (PDS II™, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA)
    Intervention: Procedure: Quill suture vs. Interrupted suture
  • Active Comparator: Quill suture
    self-anchoring 1 barbed delayed absorbable suture (Quill™ SRS, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vancouver, Canada)
    Intervention: Procedure: Quill suture vs. Interrupted suture
Not Provided

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Recruiting
32
July 2013
July 2012   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

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
Female
18 Years and older
Yes
Contact: Jasmine Tan-Kim, MD 619-221-6274 jasmine.x.tan-kim@kp.org
Contact: Giselle Zazueta-Damian 619-221-6274 Gisselle.Zazueta-Damian@kp.org
United States
 
NCT01551992
Quill LSC
No
Kaiser Permanente
Kaiser Permanente
Not Provided
Not Provided
Kaiser Permanente
March 2012

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP