MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1097/aog.0000000000005032

Медицинская библиотека · Obstetrics and gynecology · 2023

Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture in Apical Prolapse Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Pollack Bracha L, Popiel Patrick, Toaff Miriam C, Drugge Elizabeth, Bielawski Adrienne, Sacks Ashley, Bibi Moses, Friedman-Ciment Rebecca, LeBron Kira, Alishahian Leael, Phillips Dena, Rubino Sara R, Pollack Sela, Khan Rida S, Khan Eesha S, Pape Dominique Malacarne, Grimes Cara L

МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

To explore how permanent compared with absorbable suture affects anatomic success in native tissue vaginal suspension (uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension) and sacrocolpopexy with mesh.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through March 29, 2022.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Our population included women undergoing apical prolapse surgery (uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension and abdominal sacrocolpopexy). Our intervention was permanent suture for apical prolapse surgery, and our comparator was absorbable suture. We determined a single anatomic success proportion per study. Adverse events collected included suture and mesh exposure, surgery for suture and mesh complication, dyspareunia, and granulation tissue. Abstracts were doubly screened, full-text articles were doubly screened, and accepted articles were doubly extracted. Quality of studies was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. In single-arm studies using either permanent or absorbable suture, random effects meta-analyses of pooled proportions were used to assess anatomic success. In comparative studies investigating both suture types, random effects meta-analyses of pooled risk ratios were used.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND

RESULTS

Of 4,658 abstracts screened, 398 full-text articles were assessed and 63 studies were included (24 vaginal suspension [13 uterosacral ligament suspension and 11 sacrospinous ligament suspension] and 39 sacrocolpopexy). At 2-year follow-up, there was no difference in permanent compared with absorbable suture in uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension (proportional anatomic success rate 88% [95% CI 0.81-0.93] vs 88% [95% CI 0.82-0.92]). Similarly, at 18-month follow-up, there was no difference in permanent compared with absorbable suture in sacrocolpopexy (proportional anatomic success rate 92% [95% CI 0.88-0.95] vs 96% [95% CI 0.92-0.99]). On meta-analysis, there was no difference in relative risk (RR) of success for permanent compared with absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.33) or sacrocolpopexy (RR 1.00, 95% CI0.98-1.03).

CONCLUSION

Success rates were similarly high for absorbable and permanent suture after uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament suspension, and sacrocolpopexy, with medium-term follow-up.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021265848.

Для цитирования: Pollack Bracha L, Popiel Patrick, Toaff Miriam C, Drugge Elizabeth, Bielawski Adrienne, Sacks Ashley, Bibi Moses, Friedman-Ciment Rebecca, LeBron Kira, Alishahian Leael, Phillips Dena, Rubino Sara R, Pollack Sela, Khan Rida S, Khan Eesha S, Pape Dominique Malacarne, Grimes Cara L. Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture in Apical Prolapse Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2023. DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000005032.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.