Is absorbable suture superior to permanent suture for uterosacral ligament suspension?

Abstract

Aims The aims of this study were to compare surgical results and suture‐related complications after uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) with absorbable suture (AS) vs permanent suture (PS). Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, http://clinicalTrial.gov, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles that compared AS with PS for USLS. The primary outcomes were surgical success rate and suture‐related complications (suture exposure/erosion and suture removal). Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was applied to conduct all analyses. Results Four articles involving 647 patients were eventually included. Our findings demonstrated that AS had a similar surgical success rates in comparison with PS (RR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.94‐1.06) and that no significant differences in anatomic failure rates were noted between two groups (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.65‐1.86). Subgroup analyses in anatomic failure revealed no statistical differences in apical prolapse ≥1/2 TVL (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.48‐1.75), recurrent prolapse beyond the hymen (RR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.68‐2.04), as well as in recurrent anterior, posterior or apical prolapse (P = .14, P = .08, P = .09, respectively). However, AS group indicated a lower risk in suture exposure/erosion (RR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15‐0.63) and lower suture removal rate (RR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18‐0.67). Conclusions Due to similar surgical results, less suture exposure/erosion and less suture removal, the current data supported that AS is as effective as PS, but with a better safety profile.

Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture in Apical Prolapse Surgery

“…Furthermore, they found lower rates of suture exposure and erosion and need for suture removal with absorbable suture. 76 The existing data regarding suture choice for sacrocolpopexy have been similar. In a recent randomized noninferiority trial, Taglieferri et al found that, at 12 months postoperatively, delayed absorbable suture was noninferior to permanent suture when used for vaginal mesh attachment.…”