| Purpose: |
|
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.
|