Jasmine Tan-Kim1, Shawn A Menefee2, Quinn Lippmann3, Emily S Lukacz4, Karl M Luber5, Charles W Nager6. 1. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeon at the Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center in CA. jasmine.tankim@gmail.com. 2. Division Chief in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at the Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center in CA. shawn.a.menefee@kp.org. 3. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Fellow at the University of California, San Diego and the Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center. qlippmann@ucsd.edu. 4. Fellowship Director for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of California, San Diego. elukacz@ucsd.edu. 5. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeon at the Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center in CA. karl.m.luber@kp.org. 6. Division Chief for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of California, San Diego. cnager@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe anatomic failure rates for sacrocolpopexy in groups receiving either delayed absorbable or permanent monofilament suture for mesh attachment to the vagina. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 193 women who underwent sacrocolpopexy with 2 different types of sutures attaching polypropylene mesh to the vagina: delayed absorbable sutures (median follow-up, 43 weeks) and permanent sutures (median follow-up, 106 weeks). Vaginal apical failure was defined as Point C greater than or equal to half of the total vaginal length. Anterior-posterior compartmental failures were defined as Point Ba and/or Point Bp more than 0 cm. Fisher exact and χ2 tests were used to compare failure rates. There were no documented suture erosions in the delayed absorbable monofilament suture group during the review period. Two patients in the permanent suture group were found to have permanent suture in the bladder more than 30 weeks after the index procedure. RESULTS: Failure rates for the 45 subjects in the delayed absorbable group and 148 subjects in the permanent suture group were similar (4.4% vs 3.4%, p = 0.74) and not statistically different in any compartment: apical (0% vs 1.4%, p = 0.43), anterior (4.4% vs 2%, p = 0.38), or posterior (0% vs 1.4%, p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed absorbable monofilament suture appears to be a reasonable alternative to permanent suture for mesh attachment to the vagina during sacrocolpopexy. The use of delayed absorbable suture could potentially prevent complications of suture erosion into the bladder or vagina remote from the time of surgery.
OBJECTIVES: To describe anatomic failure rates for sacrocolpopexy in groups receiving either delayed absorbable or permanent monofilament suture for mesh attachment to the vagina. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 193 women who underwent sacrocolpopexy with 2 different types of sutures attaching polypropylene mesh to the vagina: delayed absorbable sutures (median follow-up, 43 weeks) and permanent sutures (median follow-up, 106 weeks). Vaginal apical failure was defined as Point C greater than or equal to half of the total vaginal length. Anterior-posterior compartmental failures were defined as Point Ba and/or Point Bp more than 0 cm. Fisher exact and χ2 tests were used to compare failure rates. There were no documented suture erosions in the delayed absorbable monofilament suture group during the review period. Two patients in the permanent suture group were found to have permanent suture in the bladder more than 30 weeks after the index procedure. RESULTS: Failure rates for the 45 subjects in the delayed absorbable group and 148 subjects in the permanent suture group were similar (4.4% vs 3.4%, p = 0.74) and not statistically different in any compartment: apical (0% vs 1.4%, p = 0.43), anterior (4.4% vs 2%, p = 0.38), or posterior (0% vs 1.4%, p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed absorbable monofilament suture appears to be a reasonable alternative to permanent suture for mesh attachment to the vagina during sacrocolpopexy. The use of delayed absorbable suture could potentially prevent complications of suture erosion into the bladder or vagina remote from the time of surgery.
Authors: Jonathan P Shepherd; Homer Lee Higdon; Edward J Stanford; Thomas Fleming Mattox Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.091
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: Christopher F Maher; Benjamin Feiner; Eva M DeCuyper; Cathy J Nichlos; Kacey V Hickey; Peter O'Rourke Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Thomas L Wheeler; Joeseph Schaffer; Zhen Chen; Cathie Spino Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Geoffrey W Cundiff; Edward Varner; Anthony G Visco; Halina M Zyczynski; Charles W Nager; Peggy A Norton; Joseph Schaffer; Morton B Brown; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-10-31 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; Emily S Lukacz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jasmine Tan-Kim; Charles W Nager; Cara L Grimes; Karl M Luber; Emily S Lukacz; Heidi W Brown; Kimberly L Ferrante; Keisha Y Dyer; Anna C Kirby; Shawn A Menefee Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894