Port Size and Post-Operative Pain Perception by Patients

NCT ID: NCT02521987

Last Updated: 2018-02-01

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

35 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2015-08-01

Study Completion Date

2017-11-16

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a difference in pain perception by participants when the assistant port size varies by 50% (8 mm to 12 mm).

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Minimally invasive approaches trade a single longer incision for 4-5 smaller incisions that allow abdominal access and abdominal insufflation through "ports". The increase in operative times is mostly due to the need to pass suture, needles, cameras and instruments through the abdominal ports. While, it is intuitive that smaller abdominal ports will result in less pain at the incision site, the port size is also limited by instrument size and the size of the needle. When ports are smaller, it can take a little more time for a needle or instrument to be passed into the port.

There is a paucity of research comparing different port sizes as they relate to participate pain and operative time especially in a randomized controlled trial setting. The investigators goal would be to determine if there is a difference in pain perception by patients when the assistant port size varies by 50% (8 mm to 12 mm).

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Pain

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

PREVENTION

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

8mm Port

Participates will be randomized to have an 8 mm assistant port used during their surgery. The participate will be asked to specify the point that represents their level of perceived pain intensity and mark it on the scale at four time points: baseline pain prior to the procedure in the pre-operatively holding area, 4 to 6 hours post operatively, on Post Operative Day 1 (POD1). The final pain assessment will be at the two weeks postoperative clinic visit.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

8mm port

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Participate in this arm will have their procedure performed with an 8mm laparoscopic port.

12mm Port

Participates will be randomized to have an 12mm assistant port used during their surgery. The participate will be asked to specify the point that represents their level of perceived pain intensity and mark it on the scale at four time points: baseline pain prior to the procedure in the pre-operatively holding area, 4 to 6 hours post operatively, on Post Operative Day 1 (POD1). The final pain assessment will be at the two weeks postoperative clinic visit.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

12mm port

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Participate in this arm will have their procedure performed with a 12mm laparoscopic port.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

8mm port

Participate in this arm will have their procedure performed with an 8mm laparoscopic port.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

12mm port

Participate in this arm will have their procedure performed with a 12mm laparoscopic port.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* laparoscopic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
* proficiency in English .

Exclusion Criteria

* Not proficiency in English
* Previous participation/randomization in the study at a previous visit
* Pregnant women cannot participate
* History of abdominal wall pain
* Chronic pain patients
Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Loyola University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Elizabeth Mueller

M.D., Associate Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Elizabeth R Mueller, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Loyola University Health System

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Loyola University Medical Center

Maywood, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Nygaard I, Bradley C, Brandt D; Women's Health Initiative. Pelvic organ prolapse in older women: prevalence and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;104(3):489-97. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000136100.10818.d8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 15339758 (View on PubMed)

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Apr;89(4):501-6. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 9083302 (View on PubMed)

Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Dec;112(6):1201-1206. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19037026 (View on PubMed)

McDermott CD, Hale DS. Abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2009 Sep;36(3):585-614. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2009.09.004.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19932417 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

207726

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Single Session Pain Education
NCT04865822 UNKNOWN NA