Barbed Versus Non-Barbed Suture for Pyeloplasty via the Minimally Invasive Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background

There is no agreed protocol on usage of proper and best suturing material in minimally invasive pyeloplasty. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize and analyze current evidence on suturing materials for laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Materials and

Methods

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE) were systematically searched for relevant comparative studies on barbed suture (BS) and non-barbed suture (NBS) in minimally invasive pyeloplasty.

Results

Five comparative studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Pooling the data demonstrated a significantly shorter operative duration in patients belonging to the BS group versus the NBS group (95% confidence interval [CI] -81.63 to -10.41, P = .01), with statistically significant estimated heterogeneity among the included studies (P < .0001). Although the incidence of redo-pyeloplasty was higher in the BS group, the pooled risk ratio (RR) for the need for redo-pyeloplasty in subjects belonging to the BS group versus the NBS group was 6.00 (95% CI 0.78-46.14), demonstrating no statistically significant difference (P = .09). A total of 5 patients developed postoperative complications. The pooled RR for the occurrence of these complication showed no significant difference among the patients belonging to both the groups (95% CI 0.22-6.05, P = .88).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive pyeloplasty using BS is associated with significantly shorter operative time. The incidence of postoperative complications and requirement of redo-pyeloplasty showed no significant difference among both the treatment groups. Further randomized controlled trials need to be conducted before any definite conclusions are drawn.