Postoperative PainNCT03565640
Anchorsure Versus Capio for Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation
A study testing Capio Slim Device and Anchorsure Device in people with Postoperative Pain, run by Wake Forest University Health Sciences at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Sacrospinous ligament fixation is a common method of repairing apical support for pelvic organ prolapse but it currently suffers from a high rate of postoperative buttock and posterior thigh pain. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 21 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Postoperative Pain
- What is being tested?
- Capio Slim Device and Anchorsure Device
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 48 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 29 Oct 2018to 26 Jan 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 21 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Female patients
- At least 21 years of age
- Surgical plan that includes a native tissue vaginal repair with apical support via sacrospinous ligament fixation. We will permit both hysteropexy and post-hysterectomy sacrospinous ligament suspension
- Understanding and acceptance of the need to return for the 6 week follow-up visit
- English speaking and able to give informed consent
- Willing and able to complete all study questionnaires
- Ambulatory
Who cannot join
- Prior sacrospinous ligament fixation procedure.
- Any serious disease or chronic condition that could interfere with the study compliance
- Inability to give informed consent
- Pregnancy or planning pregnancy prior to the 6 week postoperative visit
- Prior pelvic radiation
- Incarcerated
Show all 13Show fewer
- Prior augmented (synthetic mesh, autologous graft, xenograft, allograft) prolapse repair
- History of significant buttock or leg pain in the past 3 months
- History of fibromyalgia, polymyositis, dermatomyositis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or other auto-immune myalgic conditions
- Current regular opioid drug therapy for any chronic pain condition
- History of loss of motor or sensory function of the lower extremities
- History of sacral decubitus ulcers
- Planned concomitant levatorplasty; anal sphincteroplasty, anal fissurectomy, rectopexy, or hemorrhoidectomy
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27157
About this study
Official title: Randomized Trial Comparing Anchorsure® Suture Anchoring System and the CapioTM Slim Suture Capturing Device for Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension.
Sacrospinous ligament fixation is a common method of repairing apical support for pelvic organ prolapse but it currently suffers from a high rate of postoperative buttock and posterior thigh pain. Anchorsure® is a relatively new FDA-approved device that uses an anchor instead of the widely-used suture capturing mechanism to perform sacrospinous ligament fixation. The study hypothesis is that Anchorsure® will reduce the degree and rate of buttock and posterior thigh pain compared to the widely used Capio™ Slim suturing capturing Device.
Read the detailed description
Sacrospinous ligament fixation is a common method of repairing apical support for pelvic organ prolapse but it currently suffers from a high rate of postoperative buttock and posterior thigh pain. Rates of buttock and thigh pain 6 weeks after sacrospinous ligament fixation with the widely used Capio™ Slim device (Boston Scientific) are about 15-16% with immediate postoperative pain occurring in 55-84% of patients. This study is a randomized controlled single-blind study with the primary goal of investigating if there is an improvement in the intensity and rate of buttock and posterior thigh pain 1 day, 7 days, 6 weeks, and minimum 12 months after sacrospinous ligament fixation with a new device, the Anchorsure® Suture Anchoring System (Neomedic) compared to the widely utilized Capio™ Slim (Boston Scientific) device. 60 patients will be enrolled to undergo sacrospinous ligament fixation for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. The patients will be randomized into two study groups; one will have sacrospinous ligament fixation using the Capio™ Slim device and the other with the Anchorsure® device. The patient's pain will be recorded via the numerical rating scale (NRS), a validated pain evaluation tool. The study is powered to detect a 2.5 point difference in pain between the two groups, a value that has been shown in studies to be clinically significant to acute pain patients. Secondary outcomes of surgeon satisfaction and efficiency with the devices will be assessed via surgeon questionnaires.
- Conditions
- Postoperative Pain
- Being tested
- Capio Slim Device, Anchorsure Device
- Keywords
- Buttock pain, Thigh pain, Sacrospinous ligament fixation
- Medical subject headings
- Pain, Postoperative
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Capio Slim DeviceDevice
Participants who have been assigned to sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse will have sacrospinous ligament fixation performed with the Capio Slim Device.
Anchorsure DeviceDevice
Participants who have been assigned to sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse will have sacrospinous ligament fixation performed with the Anchorsure Device.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Capio Slim Device | Active comparator | Participants will be randomized to the sacrospinous ligament fixation with use of Capio Slim Device Receives: Device: Capio Slim Device |
| Anchorsure Device | Experimental | Participants will be randomized to the sacrospinous ligament fixation with use of Anchorsure Device Receives: Device: Anchorsure Device |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Buttock and Posterior Thigh Pain
This will be assessed using the numeric rating scale (NRS). The score is 0-10, with higher scores denoting a greater degree of pain.
Measured: postoperative 12 month
Secondary outcomes (3)
POP-Q Stage Score
The stage is assigned as follows: 0 if there is no prolapse at all, 1 if there is prolapse but the leading point is not within 1cm of the hymen, 2 if the leading point is within 1 cm of the hymen (from 1cm within the hymen to 1cm beyond the hymen), 3 if the leading point is more than 1cm from the hymen but less than 2cm from being completely prolapsed, and 4 if the leading point is within 2cm of being complete prolapsed. Therefore higher POP-Q stages correlate to a worse degree of prolapse than lower POP-Q stages.
Measured: at 12 MONTHS
Change in Pelvic Flore Disability Index - 20 (PFDI-20) Scores From Baseline to 12 Months
Symptomatic success was assessed by the pelvic floor disability index (PFDI-20) questionnaire. The PFDI-20 has 20 items within 3 sub-scales of symptoms (total of 20 items). Each item produces a response of 0 to 4, the average response in each sub-scale is multiplied by 25 to obtain the sub-scale score (range 0 to 100). The total score is the sum of the three sub-scale scores with a range of 0-300. Higher value for a time-point score indicates a greater degree of symptom bother.
The difference in scores across the study time-points was calculated by subtracting the total score at baseline from the score at 12 months post-operation. A negative value for the difference in scores from baseline to 12 months indicates symptom improvement, where the more negative the difference in score is the greater the improvement in symptoms.
Measured: Baseline and Month 12
Change in Symptomatic Success - PFIQ-7 Scores
Symptomatic success will be assessed by the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire - 7 (PFIQ-7). The PFIQ-7 has 7 items for each of 3 sub-scales (total of 21 items). Each item produces a response of 0 to 3, the average response in each sub-scale is multiplied by 100/3 to obtain the total scale score (range 0 to 100). The total score is the sum of the three sub-scale scores with a range of 0-300. Higher value for a time-point score indicates a greater degree of symptom bother.
The difference in scores across the study time-points was calculated by subtracting the total score at baseline from the score at 12 months post-operation. A negative value for the difference in scores from baseline to 12 months indicates symptom improvement, where the more negative the difference in score is the greater the improvement in symptoms.
Measured: Baseline and Month 12
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Jun 2018
- Study start29 Oct 2018
- Primary completion26 Jan 2022
- Study completion26 Jan 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (22)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Postoperative PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Wake Forest University Health SciencesThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 48 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Catherine Matthews, MD, Principal investigator, Wake Forest University Health Sciences
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03565640
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB00051211
- Status last verified
- Sep 2021
- First submitted
- 11 Jun 2018
- Last updated
- 16 Feb 2023
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-Identified data from the study will be kept on password protected digital storage for at least three years following the project completion.
Publications
Barber MD, Chen Z, Lukacz E, Markland A, Wai C, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Weidner A, Janz NK, Spino C. Further validation of the short form versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourol Urodyn. 2011 Apr;30(4):541-6. doi: 10.1002/nau.20934. Epub 2011 Feb 22.
PubMed 21344495Atherton MJ, Daborn JP, Tsokos N, Jeffery JT, Yin MJ. Complications associated with tissue anchor migration after vaginal surgery using the tissue fixation system - a case series. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Feb;52(1):83-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01383.x. Epub 2011 Dec 6.
PubMed 22141331Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;193(1):103-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025.
PubMed 16021067Brennand EA, Bhayana D, Tang S, Birch C, Murphy M, Cenaiko D, Ross S, Robert M. Anchor placement and subsequent movement in a mesh kit with self-fixating tips: 6-month follow-up of a prospective cohort. BJOG. 2014 Apr;121(5):634-40. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12536. Epub 2014 Jan 13.
PubMed 24621073Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jul;175(1):10-7. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0.
PubMed 8694033Cepeda MS, Africano JM, Polo R, Alcala R, Carr DB. What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain? Pain. 2003 Sep;105(1-2):151-7. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00176-3.
PubMed 14499431DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jun;166(6 Pt 1):1717-24; discussion 1724-8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91562-o.
PubMed 1615980Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, Wu N, Pashos CL, Clemens JQ, Anger JT. Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;122(5):981-987. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a8a5e4.
PubMed 24104778Farrar JT, Berlin JA, Strom BL. Clinically important changes in acute pain outcome measures: a validation study. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003 May;25(5):406-11. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(03)00162-3.
PubMed 12727037Ferrando CA, Walters MD. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial on the effect of local analgesia on postoperative gluteal pain in patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jun;218(6):599.e1-599.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.03.033. Epub 2018 Mar 31.
PubMed 29614274Haefeli M, Elfering A. Pain assessment. Eur Spine J. 2006 Jan;15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S17-24. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1044-x. Epub 2005 Dec 1.
PubMed 16320034Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, Fainsinger R, Aass N, Kaasa S; European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC). Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Jun;41(6):1073-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016.
PubMed 21621130Hsu Y, Chen L, Summers A, Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JO. Anterior vaginal wall length and degree of anterior compartment prolapse seen on dynamic MRI. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Jan;19(1):137-42. doi: 10.1007/s00192-007-0405-x. Epub 2007 Jun 20.
PubMed 17579801Inoue H, Sekiguchi Y, Kohata Y, Satono Y, Hishikawa K, Tominaga T, Oobayashi M. Tissue fixation system (TFS) to repair uterovaginal prolapse with uterine preservation: a preliminary report on perioperative complications and safety. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009 Apr;35(2):346-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00947.x.
PubMed 19708181Karacaoglu MU, Ozyurek ES, Mutlu S, Odacilar E. Unilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation (USLF) with a mesh stabilizing anchor set: clinical outcome and impact on quality of life. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2016;43(2):216-9.
PubMed 27132413
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Feb 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Trial Comparing Anchorsure® Suture Anchoring System and the CapioTM Slim Suture Capturing Device for Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03565640
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB00051211
- Conditions
- Postoperative Pain
- Keywords
- Buttock pain, Thigh pain, Sacrospinous ligament fixation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 48 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Wake Forest University Health SciencesUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 29 Oct 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 26 Jan 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 26 Jan 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Jun 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 16 Feb 2023
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Sacrospinous ligament fixation is a common method of repairing apical support for pelvic organ prolapse but it currently suffers from a high rate of postoperative buttock and posterior thigh pain. Anchorsure® is a relatively new FDA-approved device that uses an anchor instead of the widely-used suture capturing mechanism to perform sacrospinous ligament fixation. The study hypothesis is that Anchorsure® will reduce the degree and rate of buttock and posterior thigh pain compared to the widely used Capio™ Slim suturing capturing Device.
Detailed description
Sacrospinous ligament fixation is a common method of repairing apical support for pelvic organ prolapse but it currently suffers from a high rate of postoperative buttock and posterior thigh pain. Rates of buttock and thigh pain 6 weeks after sacrospinous ligament fixation with the widely used Capio™ Slim device (Boston Scientific) are about 15-16% with immediate postoperative pain occurring in 55-84% of patients. This study is a randomized controlled single-blind study with the primary goal of investigating if there is an improvement in the intensity and rate of buttock and posterior thigh pain 1 day, 7 days, 6 weeks, and minimum 12 months after sacrospinous ligament fixation with a new device, the Anchorsure® Suture Anchoring System (Neomedic) compared to the widely utilized Capio™ Slim (Boston Scientific) device. 60 patients will be enrolled to undergo sacrospinous ligament fixation for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. The patients will be randomized into two study groups; one will have sacrospinous ligament fixation using the Capio™ Slim device and the other with the Anchorsure® device. The patient's pain will be recorded via the numerical rating scale (NRS), a validated pain evaluation tool. The study is powered to detect a 2.5 point difference in pain between the two groups, a value that has been shown in studies to be clinically significant to acute pain patients. Secondary outcomes of surgeon satisfaction and efficiency with the devices will be assessed via surgeon questionnaires.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Capio Slim Device | Active comparator | Device: Capio Slim DeviceParticipants will be randomized to the sacrospinous ligament fixation with use of Capio Slim Device |
| Anchorsure Device | Experimental | Device: Anchorsure DeviceParticipants will be randomized to the sacrospinous ligament fixation with use of Anchorsure Device |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 21 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Female patients
- At least 21 years of age
- Surgical plan that includes a native tissue vaginal repair with apical support via sacrospinous ligament fixation. We will permit both hysteropexy and post-hysterectomy sacrospinous ligament suspension
- Understanding and acceptance of the need to return for the 6 week follow-up visit
- English speaking and able to give informed consent
Key exclusion criteria (13 listed)
- Prior sacrospinous ligament fixation procedure.
- Any serious disease or chronic condition that could interfere with the study compliance
- Inability to give informed consent
- Pregnancy or planning pregnancy prior to the 6 week postoperative visit
- Prior pelvic radiation
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Capio Slim DeviceParticipants who have been assigned to sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse will have sacrospinous ligament fixation performed with the Capio Slim Device. | Device | Capio Slim Device |
| Anchorsure DeviceParticipants who have been assigned to sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse will have sacrospinous ligament fixation performed with the Anchorsure Device. | Device | Anchorsure Device |
Primary outcome
Change in Buttock and Posterior Thigh Pain
Time frame: postoperative 12 month
This will be assessed using the numeric rating scale (NRS). The score is 0-10, with higher scores denoting a greater degree of pain.
3 secondary outcomes
POP-Q Stage Score
Time frame: at 12 MONTHS
Change in Pelvic Flore Disability Index - 20 (PFDI-20) Scores From Baseline to 12 Months
Time frame: Baseline and Month 12
Change in Symptomatic Success - PFIQ-7 Scores
Time frame: Baseline and Month 12
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Feb 2023.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 21344495Barber MD, Chen Z, Lukacz E, Markland A, Wai C, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Weidner A, Janz NK, Spino C. Further validation of the short form versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourol Urodyn. 2011 Apr;30(4):541-6. doi: 10.1002/nau.20934. Epub 2011 Feb 22.
- Background: PubMed 22141331Atherton MJ, Daborn JP, Tsokos N, Jeffery JT, Yin MJ. Complications associated with tissue anchor migration after vaginal surgery using the tissue fixation system - a case series. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Feb;52(1):83-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01383.x. Epub 2011 Dec 6.
- Background: PubMed 16021067Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;193(1):103-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025.
- Background: PubMed 24621073Brennand EA, Bhayana D, Tang S, Birch C, Murphy M, Cenaiko D, Ross S, Robert M. Anchor placement and subsequent movement in a mesh kit with self-fixating tips: 6-month follow-up of a prospective cohort. BJOG. 2014 Apr;121(5):634-40. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12536. Epub 2014 Jan 13.
- Background: PubMed 8694033Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jul;175(1):10-7. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0.
- Background: PubMed 14499431Cepeda MS, Africano JM, Polo R, Alcala R, Carr DB. What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain? Pain. 2003 Sep;105(1-2):151-7. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00176-3.
- Background: PubMed 1615980DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jun;166(6 Pt 1):1717-24; discussion 1724-8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91562-o.
- Background: PubMed 24104778Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, Wu N, Pashos CL, Clemens JQ, Anger JT. Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;122(5):981-987. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a8a5e4.
- Background: PubMed 12727037Farrar JT, Berlin JA, Strom BL. Clinically important changes in acute pain outcome measures: a validation study. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003 May;25(5):406-11. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(03)00162-3.
- Background: PubMed 29614274Ferrando CA, Walters MD. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial on the effect of local analgesia on postoperative gluteal pain in patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jun;218(6):599.e1-599.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.03.033. Epub 2018 Mar 31.
- Background: PubMed 16320034Haefeli M, Elfering A. Pain assessment. Eur Spine J. 2006 Jan;15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S17-24. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1044-x. Epub 2005 Dec 1.
- Background: PubMed 21621130Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, Fainsinger R, Aass N, Kaasa S; European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC). Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Jun;41(6):1073-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016.
- FDA 2011 Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: Update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Transvaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ ProlapseLink provided by the sponsor.
- SOUSA A, FLORES J, LEON J, SOUSA-GONZALEZ D. ICS 2017 Annual Meeting, Florence. Non-Discussion Video #850: RESULTS OF EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY IN REPAIRING PREVIOUS PROLAPSE THROUGH THE SURELIFT® SYSTEM. 5 YEARS RESULTSLink provided by the sponsor.
- AMAT L, GOMEZ A, MARTINEZ E, KAPLAN E. ICS 2010 Annual Meeting, Toronto. Non-Discussion Video #864: EVALUATION OF THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE REPAIR USING SURELIFT® SYSTEM - PRELIMINARY RESULTSLink provided by the sponsor.
- Salicrú S. 2018 IUGA Annual Meeting, Vienna. Unmoderated Poster #503: Surgical repair of severe prolapse with Surelift SystemLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-Identified data from the study will be kept on password protected digital storage for at least three years following the project completion.
Related trials for Postoperative Pain
RecruitingPhase 4
ESP Blocks for Posterior Spinal Fusion
Postoperative Pain
Recruiting
Effect of Cryotherapeutic and Nanotherapeutic Sodium Hypochlorite on Post-Operative Endodontic Pain.
Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis, Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis
RecruitingPhase 2
REctus Sheath Trial
Acute Pain, Postoperative Pain, Acute
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Pectoral Nerve Block (PECS) Using Magnesium Sulfate Added to Dexamethasone on Quality of Recovery and Chronic Post-Mastectomy Pain
Breast Cancer, Postoperative Pain
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Pain in Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section at Assuit University Hospital
Cesarean Section
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Catherine Matthews, MD principal investigator
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Capio Slim Device and Anchorsure Device in people with Postoperative Pain, run by Wake Forest University Health Sciences at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 13 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Feb 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 16 Feb 2023). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Buttock and Posterior Thigh Pain (time frame: postoperative 12 month). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03565640, which also lists 22 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Feb 2023.