MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.02.014

Медицинская библиотека · European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2023

Permanent or absorbable suture material for sacrospinous ligament fixation: Does it matter?

Padoa Anna, Ziv Yuval, Tsviban Anna, Tomashev Roni, Smorgick Noam, Fligelman Tal

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate success and safety of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) using permanent versus absorbable suture materials 12 months following surgery.

STUDY

DESIGN

Following IRB approval, the electronic medical records of women who underwent SSLF in the gynecology department of a university-affiliated medical center from November 2012 to September 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. SSLF was carried out using Capio®and Digitex™, with either absorbable (polyglactin-910 or polydioxanone) sutures (group 1), or permanent (polypropylene) sutures (group 2), Pre-operative and post-operative assessment included prolapse staging using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system and validated quality of life questionnaires (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12). Patients with postoperative information on objective and subjective outcome at 12 months were included in final analysis. Anatomical success was defined as POP stage < 2 at 12-months following surgery. For statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney test was used for continuous variables, Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables, and Chi-squared test of independence for variables with>2 categories.

RESULTS

During the study period, 234 women underwent SSLF. One-hundred and forty-two patients (60.7 %) returned at the 12-month follow-up and were included in final analysis. Seventy-two (50.7 %) patients had absorbable suture and 70 patients (49.3 %) had permanent suture. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in group 1 [100 (50-150) cc vs 50 (50-100) cc respectively, p =.016]. Moderate to severe pain on POD-1 was significantly higher in group 2 [VAS: 2.00 (0.00-4.00) vs 4.00 (3.00-5.75) respectively, p =.001]. Anatomical success, defined as POP ≤ stage 2 at 12 months, was similar between groups: 69 % in group 1 vs 67 % in group 2 (p =.77). Subjective cure was similar between groups, 97.2 % in group 1 vs 94.3 % in group 2 (p =.44). At the 12-month follow-up, none of the patients had gluteal pain. The rate of de-novo dyspareunia was similar between groups: 4 women (5.9 %) in the absorbable suture group versus 2 women (3.3 %) in the permanent suture group (p =.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that absorbable or permanent suture material does not affect outcome of SSLF. Permanent sutures may be related to increased immediate postoperative pain.

Для цитирования: Padoa Anna, Ziv Yuval, Tsviban Anna, Tomashev Roni, Smorgick Noam, Fligelman Tal. Permanent or absorbable suture material for sacrospinous ligament fixation: Does it matter?. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.02.014.

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.