Viewing Study NCT01608568


Ignite Creation Date: 2025-12-24 @ 5:56 PM
Ignite Modification Date: 2025-12-30 @ 7:12 AM
Study NCT ID: NCT01608568
Status: UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted: 2012-06-01
First Post: 2012-02-29
Is NOT Gene Therapy: True
Has Adverse Events: False

Brief Title: Affixing Polypropylene Mesh Using Barbed Suture (Quill™ SRS) During Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy
Sponsor: University of California, San Diego
Organization:

Study Overview

Official Title: AFFIXING POLYPROPYLENE MESH USING BARBED SUTURE (QUILL™ SRS) DURING ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC SACROCOLPOPEXY RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Status: UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date: 2012-05
Last Known Status: RECRUITING
Delayed Posting: No
If Stopped, Why?: Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access: False
If Expanded Access, NCT#: N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status: N/A
Acronym: Quill RALSC
Brief Summary: 1.0 STUDY OBJECTIVE 1.1 PRIMARY OBJECTIVE - To compare two methods of polypropylene mesh attachment during robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC): 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 robotic assisted 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: None

Study Oversight

Has Oversight DMC: False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?: None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?: None
Is an Unapproved Device?: None
Is a PPSD?: None
Is a US Export?: None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: