Anchorsure Versus Capio for Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation

Postoperative Pain Clinical Trial

Official title:

Randomized Trial Comparing Anchorsure® Suture Anchoring System and the CapioTM Slim Suture Capturing Device for Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension.

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT03565640
• Other study ID #: IRB00051211
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: October 29, 2018
• Est. completion date: January 26, 2022

Study information

• Verified date: September 2021
• Source: Wake Forest University Health Sciences
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical 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. 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.

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.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 48
• Est. completion date: January 26, 2022
• Est. primary completion date: January 26, 2022
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Female
• Age group: 21 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• 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

Exclusion Criteria:

• 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
• 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

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Pain, Postoperative
• Postoperative Pain

Intervention

Device:
• Capio Slim Device
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 Device
Participants who have been assigned to sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse will have sacrospinous ligament fixation performed with the Anchorsure Device.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center	Winston-Salem	North Carolina

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Wake Forest University Health Sciences

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (21)

Atherton 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. — View Citation

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. — View Citation

Barber 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. — View Citation

Brennand 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. — View Citation

Bump 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. — View Citation

Cepeda 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. — View Citation

DeLancey 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. — View Citation

Eilber 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. — View Citation

Farrar 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. — View Citation

Ferrando 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. — View Citation

Haefeli 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. — View Citation

Hjermstad 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. — View Citation

Hsu 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. Erratum In: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2014 Oct;25(10):1447. DeLancey, James O L [corrected to DeLancey, John O L]. — View Citation

Inoue 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. — View Citation

Karacaoglu 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. — View Citation

Maher CF, Murray CJ, Carey MP, Dwyer PL, Ugoni AM. Iliococcygeus or sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jul;98(1):40-4. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01378-3. — View Citation

Mowat A, Wong V, Goh J, Krause H, Pelecanos A, Higgs P. A descriptive study on the efficacy and complications of the Capio (Boston Scientific) suturing device for sacrospinous ligament fixation. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Feb;58(1):119-124. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12720. Epub 2017 Sep 22. — View Citation

Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Nov;116(5):1096-100. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73729. — View Citation

Stanford EJ, Moore RD, Roovers JP, Courtieu C, Lukban JC, Bataller E, Liedl B, Sutherland SE. Elevate anterior/apical: 12-month data showing safety and efficacy in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013 Mar-Apr;19(2):79-83. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318278cc29. — View Citation

Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK, DeLancey JO. The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 May;194(5):1438-43. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.057. Epub 2006 Mar 30. — View Citation

Unger CA, Walters MD. Gluteal and posterior thigh pain in the postoperative period and the need for intervention after sacrospinous ligament colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jul-Aug;20(4):208-11. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000091. — View Citation

* Note: There are 21 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	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.	postoperative 12 month
Secondary	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.	at 12 MONTHS
Secondary	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.	Baseline and Month 12
Secondary	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.	Baseline and Month 12

External Links

•   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 RESULTS
•   FDA 2011 Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: Update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Transvaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
•   KAPLAN E. 2015 IUGA Annual Meeting, NICE. Non-Discussed Poster #NDP295: ANCHORSURE - ANCHORING SYSTEM: OUTCOMES AND SAFETY PROFILE IN VAGINAL RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
•   LIN X, et al. 2015 IUGA Annual Meeting, Nice. Non-Discussed Poster #NDP310: SURGICAL TREATMENT OF GENITAL PROLAPSE WITH SURELIFT® MESH IN PATIENTS AT RISK OF RECURRENCE
•   Salicrú S. 2018 IUGA Annual Meeting, Vienna. Unmoderated Poster #503: Surgical repair of severe prolapse with Surelift System
•   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 RESULTS