INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The primary objective of this study was to compare outcomes of absorbable and permanent suture for apical support with high uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension (HUSLS). The secondary objective was to investigate the rate of suture erosion. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent HUSLS with delayed absorbable and primarily permanent suture. Apical support was calculated as a new variable: Percent of Perfect Ratio (POP-R). This variable measures apical support as the position of the apex in relation to vaginal length. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in apical support between the two groups. The number of patients who suffered from suture erosion in the cohort that received permanent suture was 11 (22%). CONCLUSIONS: Permanent suture, in comparison with delayed absorbable suture, for HUSLS does not offer significantly better apical support at short-term follow-up. It is also associated with a high rate of suture erosion.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The primary objective of this study was to compare outcomes of absorbable and permanent suture for apical support with high uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension (HUSLS). The secondary objective was to investigate the rate of suture erosion. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent HUSLS with delayed absorbable and primarily permanent suture. Apical support was calculated as a new variable: Percent of Perfect Ratio (POP-R). This variable measures apical support as the position of the apex in relation to vaginal length. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in apical support between the two groups. The number of patients who suffered from suture erosion in the cohort that received permanent suture was 11 (22%). CONCLUSIONS: Permanent suture, in comparison with delayed absorbable suture, for HUSLS does not offer significantly better apical support at short-term follow-up. It is also associated with a high rate of suture erosion.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: W Andre Silva; Rachel N Pauls; Jeffrey L Segal; Christopher M Rooney; Steven D Kleeman; Mickey M Karram Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Megan S Bradley; Jennifer A Bickhaus; Cindy L Amundsen; Laura K Newcomb; Tracy Truong; Alison C Weidner; Nazema Y Siddiqui Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 2.091