Here is the design of a clinical trial:

Official Title: Vaginal Surgery for the Pelvic Floor: A Randomized Trial of Synthetic Mesh Versus Synthetic Sutures

Included conditions:
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Study Armgroups:
- {'label': 'SSLS Procedure', 'type': 'ACTIVE_COMPARATOR', 'interventionNames': ['Procedure: BSSVF-M Procedure']}
- {'label': 'BSSVF-M Procedure', 'type': 'ACTIVE_COMPARATOR', 'interventionNames': ['Procedure: SSLS Procedure']}

Interventions:
- {'type': 'PROCEDURE', 'name': 'SSLS Procedure', 'description': 'Synthetic suture repair', 'armGroupLabels': ['BSSVF-M Procedure']}
- {'type': 'PROCEDURE', 'name': 'BSSVF-M Procedure', 'description': 'Bilateral sacrospinous vaginal vault fixation with synthetic mesh arms', 'armGroupLabels': ['SSLS Procedure']}

Primary Outcomes:
- {'measure': 'Composite outcome of 3 objective signs and 1 subjective symptom of POP (yes/no answers). The definition of surgical success, used in the OPTIMAL trial as described in the description below.', 'description': 'The Optimal Trial Outcome is the absence of all the following: (1) objectively recorded, via POP quantification (POP-Q)15, recurrent POP of the top of the vagina beyond the upper third of the vaginal canal; (2) objectively recorded, via POPQ, recurrent POP of the anterior or posterior vaginal walls beyond the hymenal ring (vaginal entrance); (3) vaginal bulge symptoms reported by the patient, as indicated by an affirmative response to either: "Do you usually have a bulge or something falling out that you can see or feel in the vaginal area?" and any response other than "not at all" to the question "How much does that bother you?" (4) re-treatment for prolapse by either surgery or pessary (conservative treatment with insertion of a silicone ring in the vagina for support). The POPQ is a validated quantification system with adequate interrater reliability which measures, in centimeters, the extent of vaginal wall descent with respect to a reference point at the hymenal ring.', 'timeFrame': '2 years postoperatively'}

Please estimate the sample size based on the assumption: 
The sample size calculation is based on a two-sample test of independent proportions (Chi-square test) with a two-sided significance level (α) of 0.05, a power of 80%, and an estimated 15% loss to follow-up.
Sample size
        We conducted a survey of 50 surgeons in Western Canada who indicated the smallest clinically relevant difference to change surgical practice would be an absolute change of 14%. The proportion of success in the control SSLS group was 60.5% in the OPTIMAL trial [11] and the success rate with BSSVF-M was 77% in our one-year pilot study [6]. Our pilot study was small and designed to inform a power calculation for an RCT; it did not study long-term results or cost effectiveness. Studies of mesh vs sutures in surgery for urinary incontinence indicate that mesh is more successful, durable and cost-effective than sutures, [22â25] therefore we expect similar results for POP, with sustained durability of mesh over time. Sample size was determined based on a two-sample test of independent proportions (ie., Chi-square test), using two-sided â = 0.05, anticipated successful outcome rates 60 and 75%, power = 80% and yielded 152 patients/group. To account for an estimated 15% loss to follow-up (patients who never had a follow-up visit or who were deemed successful on their last follow-up), similar to the OPTIMAL trial [26], our sample size was increased to 179 per group for a total of 358 participants.