Emelie Valtersson1, Karen Ruben Husby2, Marlene Elmelund2, Niels Klarskov2. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej, 75 2730, Herlev, Denmark. emelie.valtersson@gmail.com. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej, 75 2730, Herlev, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The wide variety of suture material used in colporrhaphy shows a lack of consensus on the optimal choice. The evidence guiding the choice of suture material is scant. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of rapid versus slowly absorbable suture on risk of recurrence after native tissue anterior colporrhaphy. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study was performed secondary to a previously published study on pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after the Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy. Data were collected from four Danish databases and corresponding electronic medical records. In this study, women having had anterior colporrhaphy performed were included. Suture materials were divided in three groups: rapid absorbable multifilament suture (RAMuS), rapid absorbable monofilament suture (RAMoS) and slowly absorbable monofilament suture (SAMoS). The main outcome was recurrence of prolapse in the anterior compartment. RESULTS: A total of 462 women were included in this study. No significant difference in recurrence was found among the three suture groups. However, a non-significant tendency towards a higher risk of recurrence in the RAMoS group [HR 2.14 (0.75-6.10) p = 0.16] compared to the RAMuS group was observed. CONCLUSION: In this study, the use of rapid absorbable multifilament suture compared to slowly absorbable monofilament suture does not seem to lead to a higher risk of recurrence after anterior colporrhaphy.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The wide variety of suture material used in colporrhaphy shows a lack of consensus on the optimal choice. The evidence guiding the choice of suture material is scant. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of rapid versus slowly absorbable suture on risk of recurrence after native tissue anterior colporrhaphy. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study was performed secondary to a previously published study on pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after the Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy. Data were collected from four Danish databases and corresponding electronic medical records. In this study, women having had anterior colporrhaphy performed were included. Suture materials were divided in three groups: rapid absorbable multifilament suture (RAMuS), rapid absorbable monofilament suture (RAMoS) and slowly absorbable monofilament suture (SAMoS). The main outcome was recurrence of prolapse in the anterior compartment. RESULTS: A total of 462 women were included in this study. No significant difference in recurrence was found among the three suture groups. However, a non-significant tendency towards a higher risk of recurrence in the RAMoS group [HR 2.14 (0.75-6.10) p = 0.16] compared to the RAMuS group was observed. CONCLUSION: In this study, the use of rapid absorbable multifilament suture compared to slowly absorbable monofilament suture does not seem to lead to a higher risk of recurrence after anterior colporrhaphy.
Authors: Susan L Hendrix; Amanda Clark; Ingrid Nygaard; Aaron Aragaki; Vanessa Barnabei; Anne McTiernan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 8.661