Top

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Published in:

Open Access 21-12-2023 | Hysterectomy | Review

Efficacy and safety of V-Loc^™ barbed sutures versus conventional suture techniques in gynecological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Juliane Hafermann, Ubong Silas, Rhodri Saunders

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 4/2024

Abstract

Purpose

One of the most challenging tasks in laparoscopic gynecological surgeries is suturing. Knotless barbed sutures are intended to enable faster suturing and hemostasis. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of V-Loc^™ barbed sutures (VBS) with conventional sutures (CS) in gynecological surgeries.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies published between 2010 and September 2021 comparing VBS to CS for OB/GYN procedures. All comparative studies were included. Primary analysis and subgroup analyses for the different surgery and suturing types were performed. Primary outcomes were operation time and suture time; secondary outcomes included post-operative complications, surgical site infections, estimated blood loss, length of stay, granulation tissue formation, and surgical difficulty. Results were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with a random effects model, and a sensitivity analysis for study quality, study size, and outlier results was performed. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022363187.

Results

In total, 25 studies involving 4452 women undergoing hysterectomy, myomectomy, or excision of endometrioma. VBS were associated with a reduction in operation time (WMD – 17.08 min; 95% CI – 21.57, – 12.59), suture time (WMD – 5.39 min; 95% CI – 7.06, – 3.71), surgical site infection (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.09, 0.78), estimated blood loss (WMD – 44.91 ml; 95% CI – 66.01, – 23.81), granulation tissue formation (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25, 0.89), and surgical difficulty (WMD – 1.98 VAS score; 95% CI – 2.83, – 1.13). No difference between VBS and CS was found regarding total postoperative complications or length of stay. Many of the outcomes showed high heterogeneity, likely due to the inclusion of different surgery types and comparators. Most results were shown to be robust in the sensitivity analysis except for the reduction in granulation tissue formation.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis indicates that V-Loc^™ barbed sutures are safe and effective in gynecological surgeries as they reduce operation time, suture time, blood loss, infections, and surgical difficulty without increasing post-operative complications or length of stay compared to conventional sutures.

Available only for authorised users

Eurostat. Surgical operations and procedures statistics; (2022) Available from: URL: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Surgical_operations_and_procedures_statistics#Number_of_surgical_operations_and_procedures

Saavalainen L, Tikka T, But A et al (2018) Trends in the incidence rate, type and treatment of surgically verified endometriosis - a nationwide cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 97(1):59–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13244CrossRefPubMed

El-Balat A, DeWilde RL, Schmeil I et al (2018) Modern myoma treatment in the last 20 years: a review of the literature. Biomed Res Int 2018:4593875. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4593875CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Greenberg JA (2010) The use of barbed sutures in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol 3(3):82–91PubMedPubMedCentral

Fouda UM, Elsetohy KA, Elshaer HS (2016) Barbed versus conventional suture: a randomized trial for suturing the endometrioma bed after laparoscopic excision of ovarian endometrioma. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(6):962–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.008CrossRefPubMed

Greenberg JA, Goldman RH (2013) Barbed suture: a review of the technology and clinical uses in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol 6(3–4):107–115PubMedPubMedCentral

van Rijssel EJ, Brand R, Admiraal C, Smit I, Trimbos JB (1989) Tissue reaction and surgical knots: the effect of suture size, knot configuration, and knot volume. Obstet Gynecol 74(1):64–68PubMed

Kim JH, Byun SW, Song JY et al (2016) Barbed versus conventional 2-layer continuous running sutures for laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure. Medicine 95(39):e4981. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004981CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Alessandri F, Remorgida V, Venturini PL, Ferrero S (2010) Unidirectional barbed suture versus continuous suture with intracorporeal knots in laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(6):725–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.06.007CrossRefPubMed

10.

Bai Y, Pu C, Yuan H et al (2015) Assessing the impact of barbed suture on vesicourethral anastomosis during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urology 85(6):1368–1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.02.033CrossRefPubMed

11.

Velotti N, Manigrasso M, Di Lauro K et al (2022) Barbed suture in gastro-intestinal surgery: a review with a meta-analysis. Surgeon 20(2):115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2021.02.011CrossRefPubMed

12.

Campbell AL, Patrick DA, Liabaud B, Geller JA (2014) Superficial wound closure complications with barbed sutures following knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29(5):966–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.09.045CrossRefPubMed

13.

Koide S, Smoll NR, Liew J et al (2015) A randomized “N-of-1” single blinded clinical trial of barbed dermal sutures vs. smooth sutures in elective plastic surgery shows differences in scar appearance two-years post-operatively. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(7):1003–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.03.015CrossRefPubMed

14.

Agarwal S, D’Souza R, Ryu M, Maxwell C (2021) Barbed vs conventional suture at cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 100(6):1010–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14080CrossRefPubMed

15.

Bogliolo S, Musacchi V, Dominoni M et al (2015) Barbed suture in minimally invasive hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292(3):489–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3653-xCrossRefPubMed

16.

Gardella B, Dominoni M, Iacobone AD et al (2018) What is the role of barbed suture in laparoscopic myomectomy? A meta-analysis and pregnancy outcome evaluation. Gynecol Obstet Invest 83(6):521–532. https://doi.org/10.1159/000488241CrossRefPubMed

17.

Iavazzo C, Mamais I, Gkegkes ID (2015) The role of knotless barbed suture in gynecologic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Innov 22(5):528–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350614554235CrossRefPubMed

18.

Tulandi T, Einarsson JI (2014) The use of barbed suture for laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(2):210–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.09.014CrossRefPubMed

19.

Sull A, Inceoglu S, August A, Gregorius S, Wongworawat MD (2016) Comparison of barbed sutures in porcine flexor tenorrhaphy. Hand (NY) 11(4):475–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944715626928CrossRef

20.

Jordan MC, Hölscher-Doht S, Jakubietz MG, Jakubietz RG, Meffert RH, Schmidt K (2014) Suture material for flexor tendon repair: 3–0 V-Loc versus 3–0 Stratafix in a biomechanical comparison ex vivo. J Orthop Surg Res 9:72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-014-0072-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Gingras K, Zaruby J, Maul D (2012) Comparison of V-Loc™ 180 wound closure device and Quill™ PDO knotless tissue-closure device for intradermal closure in a porcine in vivo model: evaluation of biomechanical wound strength. J Biomed Mater Res Part B, Appl Biomater 100(4):1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.32670CrossRef

22.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52(6):377–384. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Hooper P, Jutai JW, Strong G, Russell-Minda E (2008) Age-related macular degeneration and low-vision rehabilitation: a systematic review. Can J Ophthalmol 43(2):180–187. https://doi.org/10.3129/i08-001CrossRefPubMed

25.

Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Tsafrir Z, Palmer M, Dahlman M et al (2017) Long-term outcomes for different vaginal cuff closure techniques in robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 210:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.11.018CrossRefPubMed

27.

Huang M-C, Hsieh C-H, Su T-H et al (2013) Safety and efficacy of unidirectional barbed suture in mini-laparotomy myomectomy. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 52(1):53–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2013.01.009CrossRefPubMed

28.

Cong L, Li C, Wei B, Zhan L, Wang W, Xu Y (2016) V-Loc™ 180 suture in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a retrospective study comparing polysorb to barbed suture used for vaginal cuff closure. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 207:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.09.012CrossRefPubMed

29.

López CC, Ríos JFDL, González Y et al (2019) Barbed suture versus conventional suture for vaginal cuff closure in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: randomized controlled clinical trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 26(6):1104–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.08.030CrossRefPubMed

30.

Morgan-Ortiz F, Contreras-Soto JO, Soto-Pineda JM, Zepeda MAL, Peraza-Garay FJ (2013) Comparison between unidirectional barbed and polyglactin 910 suture in vaginal cuff closure in patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Surg Technol Int 23:143–148PubMed

31.

Song T, Kim T-J, Kim WY, Lee S-H (2015) Comparison of barbed suture versus traditional suture in laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 185:99–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.11.022CrossRefPubMed

32.

Brown DN, Gobern JM (2016) Unidirectional barbed suture for vaginal-cuff closure in laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg 32(3):167–172. https://doi.org/10.1089/gyn.2015.0082CrossRef

33.

Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA et al (2011) Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 343(jul22 1):d4002. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4002CrossRefPubMed

34.

Raischer HB, Massalha M, Iskander R, Izhaki I, Salim R (2022) Knotless barbed versus conventional suture for closure of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 29(7):832–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2022.05.001CrossRefPubMed

35.

Deedwania P, Singh A, Patel T (2022) Surgical benefits of bidirectional knotless barbed sutures over conventional sutures for uterine repair during cesarean section-a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Turk J Obstet Gynecol 19(1):51–59. https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.93395CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Neubauer NL, Schink PJ, Pant A, Singh D, Lurain JR, Schink JC (2013) A comparison of 2 methods of vaginal cuff closure during robotic hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 120(1):99–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.07.015CrossRefPubMed

37.

Tillmanns TD, Mabe A, Ulm MA, Lee D, Lowe P, Kumar S (2016) Vaginal cuff closure in robotic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial comparing barbed versus standard suture. J Gynecol Surg 32(4):215–219. https://doi.org/10.1089/gyn.2015.0139CrossRef

38.

Chen H, Hong M-K, Ding D-C (2017) Acute small bowel obstruction caused by barbed suture on the second day after laparoscopic hysterosacropexy: a case report and literature review. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 56(2):247–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2016.03.008CrossRefPubMed

39.

Karacan T, Ozyurek E, Usta T et al (2018) Comparison of barbed unidirectional suture with figure-of-eight standard sutures in vaginal cuff closure in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol 38(6):842–847. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2017.1416597CrossRefPubMed

40.

Angioli R, Plotti F, Montera R et al (2012) A new type of absorbable barbed suture for use in laparoscopic myomectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 117(3):220–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.12.023CrossRefPubMed

41.

Aoki Y, Kikuchi I, Kumakiri J et al (2014) Long unidirectional barbed suturing technique with extracorporeal traction in laparoscopic myomectomy. BMC Surg 14:84. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-14-84CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Arena A, Degli Esposti E, Cristani G et al (2021) Comparison of fertility outcomes after laparoscopic myomectomy for barbed versus nonbarbed sutures. Fertil Steril 115(1):248–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.07.036CrossRefPubMed

43.

Bassi A, Tulandi T (2013) Evaluation of total laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without the use of barbed suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 35(8):718–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30862-8CrossRefPubMed

44.

Khoiwal K, Kapoor N, Gaurav A, Kumari O, Chaturvedi J (2021) Unidirectional barbed suture versus polyglactin 910 suture for vaginal cuff closure in total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Cureus 13(4):e14257. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.14257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Kim SM, Baek JM, Song JY et al (2018) The use of barbed sutures for vaginal cuff closure during laparoscopic hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 297(3):691–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4637-9CrossRefPubMed

46.

Kumakiri J, Kikuchi I, Kitade M, Ozaki R, Kawasaki Y (2020) Incidence of postoperative adhesions after laparoscopic myomectomy with barbed suture. Gynecol Obstet Invest 85(4):336–342. https://doi.org/10.1159/000510511CrossRefPubMed

47.

Lee YH, Chong GO, Kim MJ, Gy Hong D, Lee YS (2017) Overcoming the learning curve of single-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy with barbed suture: a single surgeon’s initial experience. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 12(3):264–270. https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2017.68106CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Nawfal AK, Eisenstein D, Theoharis E, Dahlman M, Wegienka G (2012) Vaginal cuff closure during robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy: comparing vicryl to barbed sutures. JSLS 16(4):525–529. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812X13462882736772CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Song T, Lee S-H (2014) Barbed suture vs traditional suture in single-port total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(5):825–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.012CrossRefPubMed

50.

Tinelli R, Litta P, Angioni S et al (2016) A multicenter study comparing surgical outcomes and ultrasonographic evaluation of scarring after laparoscopic myomectomy with conventional versus barbed sutures. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 134(1):18–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.10.029CrossRefPubMed

51.

Zhou Y, Guthrie G, Chuang A, Faro JP, Ali V (2014) Unidirectional barbed suture versus interrupted vicryl suture in vaginal cuff healing during robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Robot Surg 8(3):201–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0451-6CrossRefPubMed

Title: Efficacy and safety of V-Loc™ barbed sutures versus conventional suture techniques in gynecological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Juliane Hafermann
Ubong Silas
Rhodri Saunders
Publication date: 21-12-2023
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Hysterectomy
Operative Gynecology
Operative Gynecology
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 4/2024
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07291-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Efficacy and safety of V-Loc^™ barbed sutures versus conventional suture techniques in gynecological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2024

Care needs and self-induced measures of women with postpartum pelvic floor disorder- Results of a social media-based survey of 2930 women

Top-cited articles in the gynecologic oncology

Safety and efficacy of non-ablative CO2 laser treatment of vulvo-vaginal atrophy in women with history of breast cancer

Visceral obesity determined by CT as a predictor of short-term postoperative complications in patients with ovarian cancer

Evaluation of fetal thymus size in maternal autoimmune diseases: systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome and antiphospholipid antibody syndrome

A chromo-hysteroscopic documentation of a transverse fundal endometrial defect