Here is the design of a clinical trial:

Official Title: Role of Leukocyte- and Platelet-Rich Fibrin Membranes in Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Reconstruction

Included conditions:
- Cranial Sutures; Closure

Study Armgroups:
- {'label': 'Classical Treatment', 'type': 'PLACEBO_COMPARATOR', 'description': 'In this arm, dural closure will be performed with the classical fibrine sealants.', 'interventionNames': ['Procedure: Dural closure']}
- {'label': 'L-PRF', 'type': 'ACTIVE_COMPARATOR', 'description': 'In this arm, dural closure will be performed with the autologous L-PRF', 'interventionNames': ['Procedure: Dural closure']}

Interventions:
- {'type': 'PROCEDURE', 'name': 'Dural closure', 'description': 'Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of autologous blood-derived products (L-PRF and fibrinogen) compared to the fibrin sealants as an adjunct for dural repair', 'armGroupLabels': ['Classical Treatment', 'L-PRF']}

Primary Outcomes:
- {'measure': 'To compare the prevalence of CSF-leaks after L-PRF closure and after the classical closure techniques for sellar defects to demonstrate non-inferiority', 'description': 'The primary aim of this study is identifying the role of L-PRF in the endoscopic endonasal closure of skull base defects. More specific, we want to demonstrate in a prospective, randomized trial that the use of L-PRF is non-inferior to classical closure techniques regarding prevalence of CSF-leaks The number of patients with a CSF-leak will be compared between both treatment groups.', 'timeFrame': '4 years'}
- {'measure': 'Cost-effectiveness evaluation based on the effectiveness and the costs of L-PRF versus the current golden standard (Tachosil and Tisseel).', 'description': 'Cost-effectiveness evaluation: compare the costs and the effectiveness of L-PRF versus commercial fibrin sealants.', 'timeFrame': '4 years'}

Please estimate the sample size based on the assumption: 
This is a non-inferiority trial with a binary outcome using a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and 80% power. The expected dropout rate is less than 2%.
Sample size {14}
        Sample size calculation was performed according to the primary outcome, using an online power calculator for binary outcome non-inferiority trials (Sealed Envelope Ltd. Available from: https://www.sealedenvelope.com). This is a non-inferiority trial with a binary outcome using a one-sided alpha 0.05 and 80% power. The assumed success rate is 94.3% in the control arm, based on center-specific experience as well as the literature [14]. Data on the use of L-PRF for this indication is limited, but we assume a 95% success rate based on prior feasibility studies [8â10].
        The statistical hypothesis for testing the treatment difference is presented as follows; H0: Îââ¤ââââ0.07 tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: Îâ>ââââ0.07, where Î is the difference between the success rates of experimental and control condition andâââ0.07 is the non-inferiority difference. The non-inferiority limit was set at 0.07 considering (a) reported CSF leakage rates without commercially available fibrin sealant averaging 17.2% [15] and (b) important additional benefits of L-PRF compared to commercially available fibrin sealants including the completely autologous nature (eliminating immune reactions), presence of immunologic cells and reduced costs.
        Based on this power calculation, 212 patients need to be included, 106 in each group. In order to account for potential missing follow-up information, failure of L-PRF preparation, or non-adherence to the allocation (expected drop-out rate less than 2%), 220 subjects will be enrolled, 110 in each group.