A Comparative Evaluation of Double Versus Loop Suture Techniques in Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Over Two Years.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Ayşe Betül Albayrak Denizli, Eralp Bulutlar, Gizem Berfin Uluutku Bulutlar, Gizem Boz İzceyhan, Sadık Şahin
{"title":"A Comparative Evaluation of Double Versus Loop Suture Techniques in Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Over Two Years.","authors":"Ayşe Betül Albayrak Denizli, Eralp Bulutlar, Gizem Berfin Uluutku Bulutlar, Gizem Boz İzceyhan, Sadık Şahin","doi":"10.1007/s00192-025-06341-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSF) is a widely accepted native tissue technique for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP), especially following the decline in mesh-based procedures. However, the optimal suture technique remains under debate.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the clinical outcomes of double versus loop suture techniques in SSF, with a focus on operative efficiency, complications, recurrence, and reoperation rates over a 24-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included 195 patients with stage 3 or 4 POP who underwent SSF with nonabsorbable polypropylene suture between January 2020 and January 2023 in a tertiary-care academic hospital specializing in urogynecologic surgery. Group 1 (n = 115) underwent classical double suture SSF, while group 2 (n = 80) received the loop suture technique. Demographic characteristics, operative times, perioperative complications, recurrence, and reoperation rates were recorded and compared between the groups.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Primary outcomes were total operative time. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications such as gluteal pain, recurrence rate, and reoperation rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups were similar in age, BMI, and baseline POP stage. The loop suture group had significantly shorter total operative time (154.04 ± 41.83 vs. 112.85 ± 37.34 min, p < 0.001) and SSF-specific surgical time (59.09 ± 22.97 vs. 37.34 ± 10.91 min, p < 0.001). Although recurrence rates were similar (24.3% in the double suture group vs. 18.7% in the loop suture group, p = 0.452), reoperation was significantly less frequent in the loop group (5% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.035). Gluteal pain occurred more often in the double suture group, although these differences were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The loop suture technique appears to be a safe and efficient alternative to the classical double suture method for SSF, offering reduced operative time and lower reoperation rates without compromising effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06341-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSF) is a widely accepted native tissue technique for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP), especially following the decline in mesh-based procedures. However, the optimal suture technique remains under debate.

Objectives: To compare the clinical outcomes of double versus loop suture techniques in SSF, with a focus on operative efficiency, complications, recurrence, and reoperation rates over a 24-month follow-up.

Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study included 195 patients with stage 3 or 4 POP who underwent SSF with nonabsorbable polypropylene suture between January 2020 and January 2023 in a tertiary-care academic hospital specializing in urogynecologic surgery. Group 1 (n = 115) underwent classical double suture SSF, while group 2 (n = 80) received the loop suture technique. Demographic characteristics, operative times, perioperative complications, recurrence, and reoperation rates were recorded and compared between the groups.

Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes were total operative time. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications such as gluteal pain, recurrence rate, and reoperation rate.

Results: Both groups were similar in age, BMI, and baseline POP stage. The loop suture group had significantly shorter total operative time (154.04 ± 41.83 vs. 112.85 ± 37.34 min, p < 0.001) and SSF-specific surgical time (59.09 ± 22.97 vs. 37.34 ± 10.91 min, p < 0.001). Although recurrence rates were similar (24.3% in the double suture group vs. 18.7% in the loop suture group, p = 0.452), reoperation was significantly less frequent in the loop group (5% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.035). Gluteal pain occurred more often in the double suture group, although these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: The loop suture technique appears to be a safe and efficient alternative to the classical double suture method for SSF, offering reduced operative time and lower reoperation rates without compromising effectiveness.

两年来双缝线与环缝线在骶棘韧带固定中的比较评价。
介绍和假设:骶棘韧带固定(SSF)是一种被广泛接受的治疗盆腔器官脱垂(POP)的本地组织技术,尤其是在网格手术减少之后。然而,最佳的缝合技术仍在争论中。目的:比较双缝线与环缝线技术在SSF中的临床效果,重点关注手术效率、并发症、复发率和再手术率,随访24个月。患者和方法:这项回顾性队列研究包括195例3期或4期POP患者,这些患者于2020年1月至2023年1月在一家专门从事泌尿妇科手术的三级医疗学术医院接受了不可吸收聚丙烯缝线的SSF。组1 (n = 115)采用经典双缝SSF,组2 (n = 80)采用环缝技术。记录两组患者的人口学特征、手术次数、围手术期并发症、复发率和再手术率并进行比较。主要观察指标:主要观察总手术时间。次要结果包括术后并发症,如臀痛、复发率和再手术率。结果:两组在年龄、BMI和基线POP分期方面相似。袢缝合组总手术时间(154.04±41.83 vs 112.85±37.34 min)明显缩短(p < 0.05)。结论:袢缝合技术是一种安全、有效的治疗SSF的替代方法,可减少手术时间,降低再手术率,且不影响疗效。
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
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信