Barbed Versus Nonbarbed Suture for Posterior Colporrhaphy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.) Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001450
Amanda L Merriman, Aletheia D Burrell, Heather Winn, William E Anderson, Megan E Tarr, Erinn M Myers
{"title":"Barbed Versus Nonbarbed Suture for Posterior Colporrhaphy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Amanda L Merriman, Aletheia D Burrell, Heather Winn, William E Anderson, Megan E Tarr, Erinn M Myers","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>There is limited literature or even consensus on the suture material used for posterior vaginal repairs.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare outcomes of barbed versus nonbarbed delayed absorbable suture used for posterior colporrhaphy.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This study conducted a randomized controlled trial of 72 women undergoing posterior repair using standardized technique-concurrent procedures permitted with barbed (n = 36) or nonbarbed (n = 36) suture. Standardized examinations, validated questionnaires, and a visual analog scale (VAS) were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 months, and a telephone interview was conducted at 6 months. The primary outcome was posterior compartment pain at 6 weeks, measured by a VAS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-two women enrolled, with follow-up rates 6 weeks (100%), 6 months (90.3%), and 12 months (73.6%). Demographics were similar between groups. A VAS with movement was not different between groups at 6 weeks. The odds of experiencing vaginal pain, having myofascial pain on examination, or being sexually active postoperatively were not different between the groups. There were no differences in the length of posterior colporrhaphy, surgical times, or hospital length of stay between the groups. Suture passes were lower in the nonbarbed group (median, 4 vs 7; P = <0.001), and suture burden was higher in the nonbarbed group (median, 26.9 vs 10.5 cm; P = <0.001). There was overall improvement in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short Form 20 prolapse and colorectal subscores but no differences between groups. Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire Short Form 12 scores improved, and dyspareunia decreased at 6 and 12 months in both groups. In addition, there were few anatomic recurrences at 6 weeks (0%) and 12 months (3.4%) and few adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found no differences in primary or secondary outcomes; however, both suture types resulted in clinical improvements in quality-of-life measures and sexual function.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001450","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: There is limited literature or even consensus on the suture material used for posterior vaginal repairs.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare outcomes of barbed versus nonbarbed delayed absorbable suture used for posterior colporrhaphy.

Study design: This study conducted a randomized controlled trial of 72 women undergoing posterior repair using standardized technique-concurrent procedures permitted with barbed (n = 36) or nonbarbed (n = 36) suture. Standardized examinations, validated questionnaires, and a visual analog scale (VAS) were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 months, and a telephone interview was conducted at 6 months. The primary outcome was posterior compartment pain at 6 weeks, measured by a VAS.

Results: Seventy-two women enrolled, with follow-up rates 6 weeks (100%), 6 months (90.3%), and 12 months (73.6%). Demographics were similar between groups. A VAS with movement was not different between groups at 6 weeks. The odds of experiencing vaginal pain, having myofascial pain on examination, or being sexually active postoperatively were not different between the groups. There were no differences in the length of posterior colporrhaphy, surgical times, or hospital length of stay between the groups. Suture passes were lower in the nonbarbed group (median, 4 vs 7; P = <0.001), and suture burden was higher in the nonbarbed group (median, 26.9 vs 10.5 cm; P = <0.001). There was overall improvement in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short Form 20 prolapse and colorectal subscores but no differences between groups. Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire Short Form 12 scores improved, and dyspareunia decreased at 6 and 12 months in both groups. In addition, there were few anatomic recurrences at 6 weeks (0%) and 12 months (3.4%) and few adverse events.

Conclusions: This study found no differences in primary or secondary outcomes; however, both suture types resulted in clinical improvements in quality-of-life measures and sexual function.

后结肠切除术的带倒刺缝合线与无倒刺缝合线:随机对照试验
重要性:关于阴道后路修补术的缝合材料,目前的文献甚至共识都很有限:本研究旨在比较阴道后路修补术中使用有倒刺和无倒刺延迟可吸收缝合线的效果:该研究对72名接受后路修补术的女性进行了随机对照试验,采用标准化技术--允许使用有倒刺缝合线(36人)或无倒刺缝合线(36人)的同期手术。在基线、6 周和 12 个月时完成标准化检查、有效问卷和视觉模拟量表 (VAS),并在 6 个月时进行电话访谈。主要研究结果为 6 周时的后室疼痛,以视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行测量:72名妇女参加了随访,随访率分别为6周(100%)、6个月(90.3%)和12个月(73.6%)。各组的人口统计学特征相似。随访 6 周时,各组间有运动的 VAS 没有差异。两组患者术后出现阴道疼痛、检查时出现肌筋膜疼痛或性生活活跃的几率没有差异。后结肠切除术的时间、手术时间或住院时间在组间没有差异。无倒刺组的缝合次数较少(中位数为 4 vs 7;P = 结论:无倒刺组的缝合次数少于无倒刺组:本研究在主要或次要结果方面均未发现差异;不过,两种缝合类型都能改善生活质量和性功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信