Capio / Capio SLIM Suture Capturing Device
The Capio™ / Capio SLIM™ is a sterile single-use suture-capturing instrument from Boston Scientific. Its throw-catch-retrieve action passes a compatible needle or dart and suture through deep tissue with one hand, facilitating limited-access vaginal surgery; how much dissection is appropriate remains case- and technique-dependent. Published uses include sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) for apical prolapse, hysteropexy and paravaginal repair.[1][2][3][4][10]
Design
- Slim-line, single-use disposable shaft.
- Capio SLIM funnel-shaped distal catch captures the suture dart (tapercut needle) after the plunger drives it through target tissue or ligament.[11]
- Plunger trigger. On the handle; one actuation both passes and captures in a single motion.
- Model-specific Capio dart sutures are listed by the manufacturer in polypropylene, braided polyester, PDO and PGA configurations; compatibility is not a license to load arbitrary needles or sutures.[11]
- Capio SLIM is the narrower-profile contemporary version for transvaginal apical POP work.
How It Works
- Expose and palpate the intended attachment, respecting nearby vessels and nerves; confirm the selected Capio model and compatible dart and suture.
- Place the head against the target tissue under sensory and/or direct visual control. For Capio SLIM, use only size 0 Capio Sutures; once the suturing action begins, do not turn, rotate or torque the device. Actuate the plunger to throw and catch the dart.[13]
- Retrieve the passed suture with the device and complete the suspension according to the operative technique and current instructions. A misfire or failed catch requires reassessment rather than repeated blind firing.[10][12]
Reconstructive / Urogyn Uses
The dominant contemporary indications:
- Sacrospinous colpopexy (SSLF) for vaginal vault prolapse. The dominant use[1][3]
- Sacrospinous hysteropexy. Uterine-sparing apical prolapse repair
- Vaginal paravaginal repair for anterior compartment defects[4]
- Uterosacral ligament suspension (high uterosacral and Mayo-McCall variants)
- Iliococcygeus fixation and other deep-ligament pelvic suspensions
Efficacy
| Endpoint | Result | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Objective / subjective success at 3 yr | 86.4% objective / 92.9% subjective as reported for the Capio group (44 enrolled), versus 88.1% / 92.9% in 42 traditional-technique patients | Leone Roberti Maggiore 2013[3] |
| Objective / subjective success at 12 mo (uncontrolled) | 95% (41/43) / 92% (44/48) in Mowat's 51-patient prospective multicenter descriptive series, at mean 17 months' follow-up | Mowat 2018[1] |
| Comparative cohort (n = 163 total) | Retrospective, two-center traditional and Capio groups together; bleeding, length of stay and catheter time did not significantly differ | Luffarelli 2025[2] |
| Absorbable vs permanent suture | Suture-material question rather than a stand-alone comparison of devices | Padoa 2023[5] |
Operative Time and Blood Loss in Comparative Cohorts
Two nonrandomized comparisons reported shorter operating time with Capio-associated techniques; differing exposure and concomitant procedures limit device-only inference:
| Metric | Capio | Traditional | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sacrospinous colpopexy time, isolated procedures | 20.9 ± 3.3 min | 39.1 ± 5.2 min (p < 0.001) | Leone Roberti Maggiore 2013, nonrandomized 86-patient comparison[3] |
| Mean operative time | 86 ± 17.4 min | 98 ± 22.6 min (p < 0.001) | Luffarelli 2025, retrospective 163-patient combined cohort[2] |
| Intraoperative blood loss | Lower in the 2013 comparison | No significant group difference in the 2025 cohort | Leone Roberti Maggiore 2013; Luffarelli 2025[2][3] |
Complications
| Complication | Rate | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Postoperative buttock pain | 84% at one week; 16% at six weeks, 7% requiring analgesia | Mowat's 51-patient prospective descriptive cohort[1] |
| Gluteal / posterior-thigh pain vs anchor-based device (Anchorsure) | No significant difference | Plair 2022 RCT[7] |
| Nerve injury | 3.8% pooled across all methods; Capio had the highest device-level rate | Amiri 2024 meta-analysis of 125 studies (10,216 cases)[8] |
| Blood transfusion / hematoma | Hematoma 1.7% pooled, higher with Laurus and Raz anchoring; transfusion higher with Deschamps and modified Deschamps devices | Amiri 2024[8] |
A June 2024 manufacturer removal of specified Capio SLIM lots cited failure to catch the dart; repeated attempts could lead to hemorrhage. The notice was lot-specific and did not withdraw all Capio devices. Check supplied product against current field notices and stop using affected lots.[12]
Context Within POP Surgery
Capio can pass sutures for native-tissue repairs, but its use has also been described in other pelvic-floor operations. Adjacent tools include Deschamps, Miya hook, Anchorsure, Saffron, i-Stitch and Endostitch.[6][9]
Capio vs Adjacent SSLF Devices
| Device | Mechanism | Key trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Capio / Capio SLIM (Boston Scientific) | Suture-capturing throw-catch-retrieve | Shorter time in two nonrandomized comparisons; neurovascular risk and lot-specific 2024 dart-capture notice[2][3][12] |
| Deschamps ligature carrier | Classic curved ligature-passing needle | Reusable, traditional; requires wider pararectal dissection |
| Miya hook | Curved suture-carrying needle | Historical workhorse; largely supplanted |
| Anchorsure (Neomedic / JUNE) | PEEK anchor in ligament substance | No through-pass; Plair 2022 RCT no pain difference vs Capio[7] |
| Saffron fixation system (Coloplast) | Anchor-based, single-use delivery tool + single-use implantable anchors; the tool may deploy multiple anchors in one patient's procedure | Newer anchor-based alternative |
| i-Stitch (A.M.I.) | Reusable instrument with single-use loading unit and blunt ball-shaped suture tip | Cadaveric vascular concern in thin ligaments |
| Endostitch (Medtronic) | Laparoscopic automated suturing device | Repurposed for transvaginal SSLF |
See also: Miya Hook, Deschamps Ligature Carrier, Anchorsure, Saffron Fixation System, i-Stitch, Endostitch, Raz-Pereyra Trocar.
References
1. Mowat A, Wong V, Goh J, et al. "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;58(1):119–124. doi:10.1111/ajo.12720
2. Luffarelli P, Sejfullai K, Mazzola C, et al. "Capio Slim suture capturing device for transvaginal apical pelvic organ prolapse." Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2025;310:113993. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2025.113993
3. Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Alessandri F, Remorgida V, Venturini PL, Ferrero S. "Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy using the Capio suture-capturing device versus traditional technique: feasibility and outcome." Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(2):267–74. doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2540-y
4. Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Ferrero S, Mancuso S, Costantini S. "Feasibility and outcome of vaginal paravaginal repair using the Capio suture-capturing device." Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(3):341–7. doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1566-1
5. Padoa A, Ziv Y, Tsviban A, et al. "Permanent or absorbable suture material for sacrospinous ligament fixation: does it matter?" Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;283:112–117. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.02.014
6. Lin FC, Gilleran JP, Powell CR, Atiemo HO. "To mesh or not mesh 'apical prolapse,' that is the question!" Neurourol Urodyn. 2024;43(7):1626–1630. doi:10.1002/nau.25469
7. Plair A, Smith W, Hines K, et al. "Gluteal and posterior thigh pain from a suture compared with an anchor-based device in patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament fixation: a randomized controlled trial." Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139(1):97–106. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004629
8. Amiri E, Bastani P, Mallah F, Mostafaei H, Salehi-Pourmehr H. "Comparison of the complications rate of different suture-passing techniques at the time of sacrospinous ligament fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024;310(6):2791–2809. doi:10.1007/s00404-024-07788-5
9. Yeung E, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, et al. "Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;3:CD012079. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012079.pub2
10. US FDA. Capio SLIM 510(k) summary K172060. Device mechanism and single-use status; verify current supplied labeling.
11. Boston Scientific. Capio SLIM product and suture catalog. Accessed 2026-09-21.
12. Boston Scientific. Urgent medical device removal, specified Capio SLIM lots. June 27, 2024, attachment 1 identifies affected material and lot numbers.
13. Boston Scientific. Capio SLIM Indications, Safety and Warnings (IFU 51540518). Accessed October 4, 2026.