INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We investigated the efficiency and efficacy of vaginal mesh attachment using interrupted, non-barbed, delayed absorbable sutures in comparison with a running, barbed, delayed absorbable suture during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC). METHODS:Women undergoing LSC or RSC were recruited. Participants were randomized to at least six 0 PDS non-barbed interrupted sutures or at least six passes of a 1 PDS barbed suture (Quill™) on each anterior and posterior polypropylene mesh leaflet. The primary outcome was the time to attach the mesh to the vagina. The LSC and RSC groups were block randomized by suture type. Secondary outcomes included: (1) intraoperative surgeon assessment of satisfaction as measured using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), (2) postoperative POP-Q evaluation for anatomic failure, and (3) overall appearance of vaginal walls measured using a VAS. RESULTS: Of the 64 included subjects who were randomized, 32 had mesh attachment with the barbed suture (16 LSC, 16 RSC) and 32 had attachment with non-barbed sutures (16 LSC, 16 RSC). Among all the subjects (LSC and RSC), the non-barbed suture group had significantly longer mesh attachment times than the barbed suturegroup (42 vs. 29 min, p < 0.001). The non-barbed suture group had significantly better scores for intraoperative ease of suture placement, surgeon satisfaction with mesh appearance, and global satisfaction. At 12 months, there were no significant differences in anatomic failure between the suture groups or overall appearance of the vaginal walls (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The barbed suture technique was 11 - 16 min faster for attaching mesh to the vagina than the non-barbed suture technique. Anatomic outcomes at 12 months were comparable between the suture groups. It is reasonable to use a running, barbed suture in minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We investigated the efficiency and efficacy of vaginal mesh attachment using interrupted, non-barbed, delayed absorbable sutures in comparison with a running, barbed, delayed absorbable suture during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC). METHODS:Women undergoing LSC or RSC were recruited. Participants were randomized to at least six 0 PDS non-barbed interrupted sutures or at least six passes of a 1 PDS barbed suture (Quill™) on each anterior and posterior polypropylene mesh leaflet. The primary outcome was the time to attach the mesh to the vagina. The LSC and RSC groups were block randomized by suture type. Secondary outcomes included: (1) intraoperative surgeon assessment of satisfaction as measured using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), (2) postoperative POP-Q evaluation for anatomic failure, and (3) overall appearance of vaginal walls measured using a VAS. RESULTS: Of the 64 included subjects who were randomized, 32 had mesh attachment with the barbed suture (16 LSC, 16 RSC) and 32 had attachment with non-barbed sutures (16 LSC, 16 RSC). Among all the subjects (LSC and RSC), the non-barbed suture group had significantly longer mesh attachment times than the barbed suture group (42 vs. 29 min, p < 0.001). The non-barbed suture group had significantly better scores for intraoperative ease of suture placement, surgeon satisfaction with mesh appearance, and global satisfaction. At 12 months, there were no significant differences in anatomic failure between the suture groups or overall appearance of the vaginal walls (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The barbed suture technique was 11 - 16 min faster for attaching mesh to the vagina than the non-barbed suture technique. Anatomic outcomes at 12 months were comparable between the suture groups. It is reasonable to use a running, barbed suture in minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
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: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Ingrid Nygaard; Alison C Weidner; Shawn A Menefee; Emily S Lukacz; Peggy Norton; Joseph Schaffer; John N Nguyen; Diane Borello-France; Patricia S Goode; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Cathie Spino; Lauren Klein Warren; Marie G Gantz; Susan F Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marco Milone; Matteo Nicola Dario Di Minno; Giuseppe Galloro; Paola Maietta; Paolo Bianco; Francesco Milone; Mario Musella Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Sebastian V Demyttenaere; Peter Nau; Matthew Henn; Catherine Beck; Jeffrey Zaruby; Michael Primavera; David Kirsch; Jeffrey Miller; James J Liu; Andrew Bellizzi; W Scott Melvin Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.058
Authors: Marjorie L Pilkinton; Gregory C Levine; Laura Bennett; Harvey A Winkler; Dara F Shalom; Peter S Finamore Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Femke van Zanten; Jan J van Iersel; Tim J C Paulides; Paul M Verheijen; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten; Egbert Lenters; Steven E Schraffordt Koops Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 2.894