Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-10-2020 | Kolporraphie Front | Original Article

Evaluation of suture material used in anterior colporrhaphy and the risk of recurrence

Authors: Emelie Valtersson, Karen Ruben Husby, Marlene Elmelund, Niels Klarskov

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 10/2020

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.

Lowenstein E, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Incidence and lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Denmark from 1977 to 2009. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(1):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2413-y.CrossRefPubMed

Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the women's health initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160–6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.123819.CrossRefPubMed

Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Morlin B, Hammarstrom M. A 5-year prospective follow-up study of vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(12):1593–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0702-z.CrossRefPubMed

Cvach K, Dwyer P. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: abdominal and vaginal approaches. World J Urol. 2012;30(4):471–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0776-y.CrossRefPubMed

Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27(1):3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20542.CrossRefPubMed

Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD004014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub6.CrossRefPubMed

Lowenstein E, Moller LA, Laigaard J, Gimbel H. Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse: a Danish cohort study with 15-20 years' follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):119–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3395-3.CrossRefPubMed

Madhuvrata P, Glazener C, Boachie C, Allahdin S, Bain C. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of polyglactin (Vicryl) mesh, polydioxanone (PDS) or polyglactin (Vicryl) sutures for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: outcomes at 2 years. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(5):429–35. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2011.576282.CrossRefPubMed

Allahdin S, Glazener C, Bain C. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of polyglactin mesh, polydioxanone and polyglactin sutures for pelvic organ prolapse surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;28(4):427–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610802150077.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Bergman I, Söderberg MW, Kjaeldgaard A, Ek M. Does the choice of suture material matter in anterior and posterior colporrhaphy? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(9):1357–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2981-0.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, Campanelli G, Conze J, Cuccurullo D, et al. European Hernia society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia. 2015;19(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1342-5.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Greenberg JA, Clark RM. Advances in suture material for obstetric and gynecologic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(3):146–58.PubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Mizon G, Duckett J. The effect of suture characteristics on short-term morbidity after vaginal prolapse surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;35(6):625–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2014.991286.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Tolstrup CK, Husby KR, Lose G, Kopp TI, Viborg PH, Kesmodel US, et al. The Manchester-fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(3):431–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3519-9.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Antonsen K, Rosenstock CV, Lundstrom LH. The Danish Anaesthesia database. Clin Epidemiol. 2016;8:435–8. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S99517.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Guldberg R, Brostrom S, Hansen JK, Kaerlev L, Gradel KO, Norgard BM, et al. The Danish Urogynaecological database: establishment, completeness and validity. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(6):983–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1968-8.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Topsoee M, Helene Ibfelt E, Settnes A. The Danish hysterectomy and hysteroscopy database. Clin Epidemiol Volume. 2016;8:515–20. https://doi.org/10.2147/clep.S99465.CrossRef

18.

Durnea CM, Pergialiotis V, Duffy JMN, Bergstrom L, Elfituri A, Doumouchtsis SK. A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set. Int Urogynecol J. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3781-5.

19.

Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet. 2007;369(9566):1027–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60462-0.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Vergeldt TF, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1559–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2695-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Peterson TV, Karp DR, Aguilar VC, Davila GW. Primary versus recurrent prolapse surgery: differences in outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(4):483–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1057-9.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Nüssler E, Eskildsen JK, Nüssler EK, Bixo M, Löfgren M. Impact of surgeon experience on routine prolapse operations. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;29(2):297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3353-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Al-Mubarak L, Al-Haddab M. Cutaneous wound closure materials: an overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2013;6(4):178–88. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2077.123395.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Dennis C, Sethu S, Nayak S, Mohan L, Morsi YY, Manivasagam G. Suture materials - current and emerging trends. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2016;104(6):1544–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35683.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Evaluation of suture material used in anterior colporrhaphy and the risk of recurrence
Authors: Emelie Valtersson
Karen Ruben Husby
Marlene Elmelund
Niels Klarskov
Publication date: 01-10-2020
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keyword: Kolporraphie Front
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04415-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Evaluation of suture material used in anterior colporrhaphy and the risk of recurrence

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

Video of uterovaginal procidentia repair incorporating a high extraperitoneal uterosacral vault suspension

Pain after permanent versus delayed absorbable monofilament suture for vaginal graft attachment during minimally invasive total hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy

The impact of prior prolapse repairs on surgical outcomes with minimally invasive sacral colpopexy

Long-term follow-up of native tissue anterior vaginal wall repair: does the POP-Q stage really reflect patients’ satisfaction rate?

Outcomes of native tissue transvaginal apical approaches in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence

Traditional McCall culdoplasty compared to a modified McCall technique with double ligament suspension: anatomical and clinical outcomes