剖宫产子宫瘢痕缺损的倒刺缝合与传统缝合:随机临床试验。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
{"title":"剖宫产子宫瘢痕缺损的倒刺缝合与传统缝合:随机临床试验。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The role of barbed sutures in preventing myometrial defects and enhancing postpartum outcomes after cesarean section (C-section) is uncertain.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study compared clinical and ultrasonographic outcomes of uterine scar defects after C-section with barbed and conventional smooth thread sutures.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>This was a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Four obstetrics and gynecology departments across three Japanese healthcare regions were included. The participants were women requiring their first cesarean delivery between May 2020 and March 2023. Of the 1211 participants enrolled, 298 underwent C-section and 253 were followed up until July 2023. Participants with singleton pregnancies were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either conventional or spiral thread sutures with a double-layer continuous suture. The study period comprised the time of consent to the 6- to 7-month examination. The primary endpoint was the rate of scar niches &gt;2 mm evaluated using transvaginal ultrasonography at 6 to 7 months after surgery. Additional metrics included the total operative time, suture application time, operative blood loss, number of additional sutures required for hemostasis, maternal surgical complications, postoperative infections, surgeon's years of experience, and individual subscale scores.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>All data of the 220 participants (barbed suture group: 110; conventional suture group: 110) were available, thus enabling a full analysis set. A comparison of the barbed and conventional suture groups, respectively, revealed the following: niche length, 2.45±1.65 mm (range: 1.0–6.7) vs 3.79±1.84 mm (range: 1.0–11.0) (<em>P</em>&lt;.001); niche depth, 1.78±1.07 mm (range: 1.0–5.7) vs 2.70±1.34 mm (range: 1.0–7.3) (<em>P</em>&lt;.001); residual myometrial thickness (RMT), 8.46±1.74 mm (range: 4.8–13.0) vs 7.07±2.186 mm (range: 2.2–16.2) (<em>P</em>&lt;.001); and niche width, 1.58±2.73 mm (range: 0.0–14.0) vs 2.88±2.36 mm (range: 0.0–11.0) (<em>P</em>&lt;.001), respectively. The barbed suture group exhibited no defects and an RMT &lt;3 mm. Furthermore, the barbed suture group had a lower rate of uterine niches (29.1%; <em>n</em>=32/110) than the conventional suture group (68.2%; <em>n</em>=75/110). Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in operative times, maternal surgical complications, or postoperative complications.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Double-layer barbed sutures during cesarean delivery may prevent C-section scar defects and postoperative complications.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589933324001575/pdfft?md5=d0eaf442630794a1641e58d6fe4d5637&pid=1-s2.0-S2589933324001575-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barbed vs conventional sutures for cesarean uterine scar defects: a randomized clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The role of barbed sutures in preventing myometrial defects and enhancing postpartum outcomes after cesarean section (C-section) is uncertain.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study compared clinical and ultrasonographic outcomes of uterine scar defects after C-section with barbed and conventional smooth thread sutures.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>This was a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Four obstetrics and gynecology departments across three Japanese healthcare regions were included. The participants were women requiring their first cesarean delivery between May 2020 and March 2023. Of the 1211 participants enrolled, 298 underwent C-section and 253 were followed up until July 2023. Participants with singleton pregnancies were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either conventional or spiral thread sutures with a double-layer continuous suture. The study period comprised the time of consent to the 6- to 7-month examination. The primary endpoint was the rate of scar niches &gt;2 mm evaluated using transvaginal ultrasonography at 6 to 7 months after surgery. Additional metrics included the total operative time, suture application time, operative blood loss, number of additional sutures required for hemostasis, maternal surgical complications, postoperative infections, surgeon's years of experience, and individual subscale scores.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>All data of the 220 participants (barbed suture group: 110; conventional suture group: 110) were available, thus enabling a full analysis set. A comparison of the barbed and conventional suture groups, respectively, revealed the following: niche length, 2.45±1.65 mm (range: 1.0–6.7) vs 3.79±1.84 mm (range: 1.0–11.0) (<em>P</em>&lt;.001); niche depth, 1.78±1.07 mm (range: 1.0–5.7) vs 2.70±1.34 mm (range: 1.0–7.3) (<em>P</em>&lt;.001); residual myometrial thickness (RMT), 8.46±1.74 mm (range: 4.8–13.0) vs 7.07±2.186 mm (range: 2.2–16.2) (<em>P</em>&lt;.001); and niche width, 1.58±2.73 mm (range: 0.0–14.0) vs 2.88±2.36 mm (range: 0.0–11.0) (<em>P</em>&lt;.001), respectively. The barbed suture group exhibited no defects and an RMT &lt;3 mm. Furthermore, the barbed suture group had a lower rate of uterine niches (29.1%; <em>n</em>=32/110) than the conventional suture group (68.2%; <em>n</em>=75/110). Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in operative times, maternal surgical complications, or postoperative complications.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Double-layer barbed sutures during cesarean delivery may prevent C-section scar defects and postoperative complications.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589933324001575/pdfft?md5=d0eaf442630794a1641e58d6fe4d5637&pid=1-s2.0-S2589933324001575-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589933324001575\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589933324001575","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:倒钩缝合线在预防剖宫产术后子宫肌层缺损和提高产后效果方面的作用尚不确定:本研究比较了使用倒钩缝合线和传统平滑线缝合剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕缺损的临床和超声结果:这是一项多中心、平行组、随机对照临床试验。研究设计:这是一项多中心、平行组、随机对照临床试验,包括日本三个医疗保健地区的四个妇产科。参与者为 2020 年 5 月至 2023 年 3 月期间需要首次剖宫产的产妇。在1211名参与者中,298人接受了剖宫产手术,253人接受了随访,直至2023年7月。单胎妊娠的参与者被随机分配(1:1 比例)接受常规缝合或螺旋线双层连续缝合。研究期间包括同意接受治疗到 6 至 7 个月的检查。主要终点是术后6至7个月时通过经阴道超声波检查评估疤痕龛>2毫米的比率。其他指标包括手术总时间、缝合时间、手术失血量、止血所需的额外缝合次数、产妇手术并发症、术后感染、外科医生的经验年限以及个人分量表评分:220 名参与者(带刺缝合组:110 人;传统缝合组:110 人)的所有数据均已提供,因此可以进行全套分析。倒钩缝合组和传统缝合组的比较结果如下:缝龛长度,2.45±1.65 毫米(范围:1.0-6.7)对 3.79±1.84毫米(范围:1.0-11.0)(PC结论:剖宫产时双层倒刺缝合可预防剖宫产瘢痕缺损和术后并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Barbed vs conventional sutures for cesarean uterine scar defects: a randomized clinical trial

Background

The role of barbed sutures in preventing myometrial defects and enhancing postpartum outcomes after cesarean section (C-section) is uncertain.

Objective

This study compared clinical and ultrasonographic outcomes of uterine scar defects after C-section with barbed and conventional smooth thread sutures.

Study Design

This was a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Four obstetrics and gynecology departments across three Japanese healthcare regions were included. The participants were women requiring their first cesarean delivery between May 2020 and March 2023. Of the 1211 participants enrolled, 298 underwent C-section and 253 were followed up until July 2023. Participants with singleton pregnancies were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either conventional or spiral thread sutures with a double-layer continuous suture. The study period comprised the time of consent to the 6- to 7-month examination. The primary endpoint was the rate of scar niches >2 mm evaluated using transvaginal ultrasonography at 6 to 7 months after surgery. Additional metrics included the total operative time, suture application time, operative blood loss, number of additional sutures required for hemostasis, maternal surgical complications, postoperative infections, surgeon's years of experience, and individual subscale scores.

Results

All data of the 220 participants (barbed suture group: 110; conventional suture group: 110) were available, thus enabling a full analysis set. A comparison of the barbed and conventional suture groups, respectively, revealed the following: niche length, 2.45±1.65 mm (range: 1.0–6.7) vs 3.79±1.84 mm (range: 1.0–11.0) (P<.001); niche depth, 1.78±1.07 mm (range: 1.0–5.7) vs 2.70±1.34 mm (range: 1.0–7.3) (P<.001); residual myometrial thickness (RMT), 8.46±1.74 mm (range: 4.8–13.0) vs 7.07±2.186 mm (range: 2.2–16.2) (P<.001); and niche width, 1.58±2.73 mm (range: 0.0–14.0) vs 2.88±2.36 mm (range: 0.0–11.0) (P<.001), respectively. The barbed suture group exhibited no defects and an RMT <3 mm. Furthermore, the barbed suture group had a lower rate of uterine niches (29.1%; n=32/110) than the conventional suture group (68.2%; n=75/110). Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in operative times, maternal surgical complications, or postoperative complications.

Conclusion

Double-layer barbed sutures during cesarean delivery may prevent C-section scar defects and postoperative complications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
254
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) is a highly esteemed publication with two companion titles. One of these is the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Maternal-Fetal Medicine (AJOG MFM), which is dedicated to the latest research in the field of maternal-fetal medicine, specifically concerning high-risk pregnancies. The journal encompasses a wide range of topics, including: Maternal Complications: It addresses significant studies that have the potential to change clinical practice regarding complications faced by pregnant women. Fetal Complications: The journal covers prenatal diagnosis, ultrasound, and genetic issues related to the fetus, providing insights into the management and care of fetal health. Prenatal Care: It discusses the best practices in prenatal care to ensure the health and well-being of both the mother and the unborn child. Intrapartum Care: It provides guidance on the care provided during the childbirth process, which is critical for the safety of both mother and baby. Postpartum Issues: The journal also tackles issues that arise after childbirth, focusing on the postpartum period and its implications for maternal health. AJOG MFM serves as a reliable forum for peer-reviewed research, with a preference for randomized trials and meta-analyses. The goal is to equip researchers and clinicians with the most current information and evidence-based strategies to effectively manage high-risk pregnancies and to provide the best possible care for mothers and their unborn children.
×
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