Vaginal Cuff Complications After Closure with an Endoscopic Device versus Conventional Suturing.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Nicole Brzozowski, Lily Deng, Anya Laibangyang, Skylar Gill, Mounikasai Talari, Bradley Nolan, Dorothy B Wakefield, David Doo, Linus Chuang
{"title":"Vaginal Cuff Complications After Closure with an Endoscopic Device versus Conventional Suturing.","authors":"Nicole Brzozowski, Lily Deng, Anya Laibangyang, Skylar Gill, Mounikasai Talari, Bradley Nolan, Dorothy B Wakefield, David Doo, Linus Chuang","doi":"10.4293/JSLS.2024.00035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proficiency with laparoscopic suturing is often the rate-limiting step in performing a total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Intracorporeal suturing is challenging due to difficulties with needle control and tissue handling. Endoscopic suturing devices may improve operator experience.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare rates of vaginal cuff complications between cuff closures performed with an endoscopic device versus conventional laparoscopic instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>IRB-approved retrospective cohort study from 2018 to 2022. Data were stored in REDCap. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS 9.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 223 patients were included; 29 patients experienced a vaginal cuff complication (13%). There was a nonsignificant trend towards increased cuff complications in the Endo Stitch group (19.2% vs 11.4%, <i>P</i> = .16; OR = 1.8, 95% CI 0.78-4.38). Patients with an Endo Stitch closure had significantly more cases of cuff cellulitis (8.5% vs 0%, <i>P</i> = .002). There was no significant difference in pelvic fluid collections or abscess (2.1% vs 1.1%, <i>P</i> = .51). While all cases of cuff dehiscence occurred in the conventional closure group, the difference was not statistically significant (0% vs 2.8%, <i>P</i> = .59). There was no significant difference in vaginal bleeding (14.9% vs 9.1%, <i>P</i> = .24).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No significant difference was observed in composite vaginal cuff complications using barbed suture with the Endo Stitch device versus conventional laparoscopic instruments. However, the trend towards increased cuff complications and the significantly increased rates of cuff cellulitis observed with an Endo Stitch closure is concerning. As the current data is limited by a small sample size, both methods should be considered appropriate. However, more studies at higher power are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":17679,"journal":{"name":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","volume":"28 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11741201/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2024.00035","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Proficiency with laparoscopic suturing is often the rate-limiting step in performing a total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Intracorporeal suturing is challenging due to difficulties with needle control and tissue handling. Endoscopic suturing devices may improve operator experience.

Objectives: To compare rates of vaginal cuff complications between cuff closures performed with an endoscopic device versus conventional laparoscopic instruments.

Methods: IRB-approved retrospective cohort study from 2018 to 2022. Data were stored in REDCap. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS 9.4.

Results: A total of 223 patients were included; 29 patients experienced a vaginal cuff complication (13%). There was a nonsignificant trend towards increased cuff complications in the Endo Stitch group (19.2% vs 11.4%, P = .16; OR = 1.8, 95% CI 0.78-4.38). Patients with an Endo Stitch closure had significantly more cases of cuff cellulitis (8.5% vs 0%, P = .002). There was no significant difference in pelvic fluid collections or abscess (2.1% vs 1.1%, P = .51). While all cases of cuff dehiscence occurred in the conventional closure group, the difference was not statistically significant (0% vs 2.8%, P = .59). There was no significant difference in vaginal bleeding (14.9% vs 9.1%, P = .24).

Conclusion: No significant difference was observed in composite vaginal cuff complications using barbed suture with the Endo Stitch device versus conventional laparoscopic instruments. However, the trend towards increased cuff complications and the significantly increased rates of cuff cellulitis observed with an Endo Stitch closure is concerning. As the current data is limited by a small sample size, both methods should be considered appropriate. However, more studies at higher power are needed.

内窥镜缝合与常规缝合后阴道袖带并发症。
背景:熟练掌握腹腔镜缝合通常是腹腔镜全子宫切除术的关键。由于针头控制和组织处理困难,体内缝合是具有挑战性的。内窥镜缝合装置可以改善操作人员的体验。目的:比较内窥镜设备与传统腹腔镜设备进行阴道袖带闭合的并发症发生率。方法:irb批准的2018 - 2022年回顾性队列研究。数据存储在REDCap中。采用SAS 9.4进行统计学分析。结果:共纳入223例患者;29例患者出现阴道袖带并发症(13%)。Endo Stitch组袖带并发症增加的趋势不显著(19.2% vs 11.4%, P = 0.16;Or = 1.8, 95% ci 0.78-4.38)。采用Endo Stitch缝合的患者有明显更多的袖带蜂窝织炎病例(8.5% vs 0%, P = 0.002)。盆腔积液或脓肿无显著差异(2.1% vs 1.1%, P = 0.51)。而在常规缝合组中,所有袖带破裂的病例均发生,差异无统计学意义(0% vs 2.8%, P = 0.59)。阴道出血两组无显著性差异(14.9% vs 9.1%, P = 0.24)。结论:与传统腹腔镜器械相比,使用Endo Stitch装置进行倒刺缝合的复合阴道袖并发症无显著差异。然而,随着Endo Stitch缝合,袖带并发症的增加和袖带蜂窝织炎发生率的显著增加的趋势值得关注。由于目前的数据受到小样本量的限制,两种方法都应该被认为是合适的。然而,需要在更高的功率下进行更多的研究。
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
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons publishes original scientific articles on basic science and technical topics in all the fields involved with laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive surgery. CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS is dedicated to the publication of Case Reports in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The journals seek to advance our understandings and practice of minimally invasive, image-guided surgery by providing a forum for all relevant disciplines and by promoting the exchange of information and ideas across specialties.
×
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