A randomized controlled trial of permanent vs absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension

被引:10
|
作者
Kowalski, Joseph T. [1 ]
Genadry, Rene [1 ]
Ten Eyck, Patrick [2 ]
Bradley, Catherine S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Iowa Hosp & Clin, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Female Pelv Med & Reconstruct Surg, 200 Hawkins Dr PFP OBGYN, Iowa City, IA 52245 USA
[2] Univ Iowa Hosp & Clin, Inst Clin & Translat Sci, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
关键词
Prolapse; Surgery; Trial; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1007/s00192-020-04244-1
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Introduction and hypothesis Uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) is a common procedure for apical pelvic organ prolapse. The procedure has been described using only permanent suture, only absorbable suture and a combination of permanent and absorbable suture. We hypothesized that the use of absorbable suture is not inferior to the use of permanent suture. Methods All women undergoing USLS between October 2016 and November 2017 were approached. Subjects were randomized to permanent or absorbable suture. The primary outcome was POP-Q point C 12 months after surgery (non-inferiority limit = 2 cm). A composite outcome of success at 12 months was defined as no apical prolapse >= 1/2 TVL, no prolapse beyond the hymen, no prolapse retreatment and no bulge symptoms. Results Forty-four subjects with mean (SD) age 62.9 (12.0) years and body mass index 29.1 (5.4) kg/m(2) were enrolled and underwent USLS. Fifteen (34.1%) had POP-Q stage II and 29 (65.9%) stage III prolapse. Twenty-two were randomized to permanent and 22 to absorbable suture. Forty (90.9%) completed the 12-month follow-up. Median (IQR) POP-Q point C at 12 months was -7 (-10, -6) for the permanent and - 7 (-9, -5.5) for the absorbable suture groups (p = 0.65, non-inferiority p < 0.0002). Four (20%) in the permanent and one (5%) in the absorbable suture group reported bulge symptoms (p = 0.34). Fifteen (75%) in the permanent and 18 (90%) in the absorbable suture groups met criteria for composite success (p = 0.41). Intervention-related adverse outcomes were uncommon and not different between groups. Conclusion Absorbable suture for USLS is not inferior to permanent suture for apical anatomic outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:785 / 790
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A randomized trial of Prophylactic Uterosacral Ligament Suspension at the time of hysterectomy for Prevention of Vaginal Vault Prolapse (PULS): Design and methods
    Alperin, Marianna
    Weinstein, Milena
    Kivnick, Seth
    Duong, Thinh H.
    Menefee, Shawn
    [J]. CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2013, 35 (02) : 8 - 12
  • [42] Randomized controlled trial comparing subcuticular absorbable suture with conventional interrupted suture for wound closure at elective operation of colon cancer
    Tanaka, Akira
    Sadahiro, Sotaro
    Suzuki, Toshiyuki
    Okada, Kazutake
    Saito, Gota
    [J]. SURGERY, 2014, 155 (03) : 486 - 492
  • [43] Monofilament vs multifilament suture for cervical cerclage: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
    Jayakumaran, Jenani
    Angras, Kajal
    Wang, Bingbing
    Paglia, Michael J.
    Rosen, Todd
    Schuster, Meike
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY MFM, 2023, 5 (02)
  • [44] Functional and anatomic comparison of 2 versus 3 suture placement for uterosacral ligament suspension: a cadaver study
    Montoya, T. Ignacio
    Dillon, Shena J.
    Balgobin, Sunil
    Wai, Clifford Y.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 209 (05)
  • [45] Impact of permanent versus absorbable suture in vaginal suspension surgery for apical pelvic organ prolapse
    Pollack, B. L.
    Popiel, P.
    Drugge, E.
    Bibi, M.
    Pollack, S.
    Friedman, R.
    Alishahian, L.
    Bielawski, A.
    Sacks, A.
    Lebron, K.
    Phillips, D.
    Rubino, S. R.
    Toaff, M.
    Khan, R.
    Khan, E.
    Marioutina, M.
    Gorgy, M.
    Grimes, C. L.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 226 (03) : S1281 - S1282
  • [46] Suture Complication Rates and Surgical Outcomes According to the Nonabsorbable Suture Materials Used in Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: Polyester versus Polypropylene
    Lee, Jeesun
    Oh, Sumin
    Jeon, Myung Jae
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 28 (08) : 1503 - 1507
  • [47] Pudendal Nerve Block with Liposomal Bupivacaine for Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Ezzedine, D.
    Dhariwal, L.
    Wasenda, E.
    Salamon, C.
    Caraballo, R.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2022, 33 (SUPPL 2) : S209 - S210
  • [48] Low risk of ureteral obstruction with "deep" (dorsal/posterior) uterosacral ligament suture placement for transvaginal apical suspension
    Aronson, MP
    Aronson, PK
    Howard, AE
    Morse, AN
    Baker, SP
    Young, SB
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2005, 192 (05) : 1530 - 1536
  • [49] Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial
    Nager, Charles W.
    Visco, Anthony G.
    Richter, Holly E.
    Rardin, Charles R.
    Komesu, Yuko
    Harvie, Heidi S.
    Zyczynski, Halina M.
    Paraiso, Marie Fidela R.
    Mazloomdoost, Donna
    Sridhar, Amaanti
    Thomas, Sonia
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 225 (02)
  • [50] RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF POST-HYSTERECTOMY VAGINAL VAULT PROLAPSE TREATMENT WITH EXTRAPERITONEAL VAGINAL UTEROSACRAL LIGAMENT SUSPENSION WITH ANTERIOR MESH REINFORCEMENT VS SACROCOLPOPEXY (OPEN/LAPAROSCOPIC)
    Lim, Y. N.
    Rosamilia, A.
    Dwyer, P. L.
    Alvarez, J.
    Chao, F.
    Murray, C.
    Leitch, A.
    Schierlitz, L.
    Desouza, A.
    Thomas, E.
    Agnew, G.
    Lee, J.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2012, 23 : S48 - S49