Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial

Authors: Roeland Odijk, Bernadette Hennipman, Melek Rousian, Khadija Madani, Marja Dijksterhuis, Jan Willem de Leeuw, Arjan van Hof

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Previous studies have shown that complaints after episiotomy repair depend on the method and material used for repair. The objective of our study was to determine which of two frequently used suture materials, Monocryl® (poliglecaprone 25) and Vicryl Rapide™ (polyglactin 910), is superior for intracutaneous closure of the skin in mediolateral episiotomies.

Methods

In a randomized controlled trial performed in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013 250 primiparous women with uncomplicated mediolateral episiotomies were randomly allocated to intracutaneous skin closure with either Monocryl® or Vicryl Rapide™. All other layers were sutured with Vicryl 2-0 and Vicryl 0 in both groups. Pain scores and complications were documented using questionnaires during the first three months post partum. The primary outcome was pain 10 days after delivery in sitting position established by Visual Analogous Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were pain scores at different time points and reported complications such as infections, dehiscence and dyspareunia one day, 10 days, six weeks and three months after delivery.

Results

Of 250 allocated women 54% returned questionnaires. No statistical difference was found between both groups for the primary outcome (VAS 2,8 (95% CI 2,18-3,44) vs. VAS 2,5 (95% CI 2,00-2,98), p = 0,43). With regard to secondary outcomes only self-reported dehiscence was significantly different, favouring Monocryl® (10% vs. 25%, p = 0.016).

Conclusions

Use of Monocryl® 3-0 and Vicryl Rapide™ 3-0 for intracutaneous closure of the skin after mediolateral episiotomy leads to equal pain scores ten days after delivery and therefore both materials may be considered for this use. Monocryl® 3-0 might be favourable over Vicryl Rapide™ 3-0 due to less self-reported dehiscence after intracutaneous closure of the skin in mediolateral episiotomies.

Trial registration

The trial was retrospectively registered under trial nr. ISRCTN29869308 on 20-04-2016.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Smith LA, Price N, Simonite V, Burns EE. Incidence of and risk factors for perineal trauma: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2013;13:59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
McCandlish R, Bowler U, van Asten H, Berridge G, Winter C, Sames L, Garcia J, Renfrew M, Elbourne D. A randomised controlled trial of care of the perineum during second stage of normal labour. BJOG. 1998;105(12):1262–72.CrossRef
3.
Sleep J, Grant A, Garcia J, Elbourne D, Spencer J, Chalmers I. West Berkshire perineal management trial. Br Med J. 1984;289:587–90.CrossRef
4.
De Leeuw JW. dWC, Kuijken JP, Bruinse HW: Mediolateral episiotomy reduces the risk for anal sphincter injury during operative vaginal delivery. BJOG. 2008;115:104–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Christiaens WNM, de Vries R. Trends in the medicalisation of childbirth in Flanders and the Netherlands. Midwifery. 2013;29:e1–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Necesalova P, Karbanova J, Rusavy Z, Pastor Z, Jansova M, Kalis V. Mediolateral versus lateral episiotomy and their effect on post partum coital activity and dyspareunia rate 3 and 6 months postpartum. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2016;8:25–30.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Andrews VTR, Sultan AH, Jones PW. Evaluation of post partum perineal pain and dyspareunia – a prospective study. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and. Reprod Biol. 2008;137:152–6.
8.
Isager-Sally LLJ, Jacobsen B, Bostofte E. Episiotomy repair-immediate and long-term sequelae. BJOG. 1986;93:420–5.CrossRef
9.
Kettle CHR, Jones P, Darby L, Gray R, Johanson R. Continuous versus interrupted perineal repair with standard or rapidly absorbed sutures after spontaneous vaginal birth: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359:2217–23.CrossRefPubMed
10.
McElhinney BRGD, Dornan G, Harper MA. Episiotomy repair: Vicryl versus Vicryl rapide. The Ulster Medical journal. 2000;69:27–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Leroux NBE. Impact of chromic catgut versus polyglactin 910 versus fast-absorbing polyglactin sutures for perineal repair: a randomized controlled trial.. American. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;194:1585–90.
12.
Kettle CDT, Ismail KM. Continuous versus interrupted sutures for repair of episiotomy or second-degree tears. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD000947.PubMed
13.
Grant A. The choice of suture materials and techniques for repair of perineal trauma: an overview of the evidence from controlled trials. BJOG. 1989;96:1281–9.CrossRef
14.
Kettle CJR. Absorbable synthetic versus catgut suture material for perineal repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000006.
15.
Dencker ALI, Sporrong T. Suturing after childbirth- a randomised controlled study testing a new monofilament material. BJOG. 2006;113:114–6.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Kokanali DUM, Kuntay Kokanali M, Karayalcin R, Tonguc E. Continuous versus interrupted episiotomy repair with monofilament or multifilament absorbed suture materials: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284:275–80.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Niessen FBSP, Kon M. The role of suture material in hypertrophic scar formation: Monocryl vs. Vicryl-rapide. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;39:254–60.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Masini BDSD, Waterman SM, Wenke JC. Bacterial adherence to suture materials. J Surg Educ. 2011;68:101–4.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Gartti-Jardim EC, de Souza A, Carvalho AC, Pereira CC, Okamoto R, Margro Filho O. Comparative study of the healing process when using Vicryl®, Vicryl rapid®, Vicryl plus®, and Monocryl® sutures in the rat dermal tissue. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;17:293–8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bezwada RSJD, Lee IY, Agarwal V, Persivale J, Trenka-Benthin S, Erneta M, Suryadevara J, Yang A, Liu S. Monocryl suture, a new ultra-pliable absorbable monofilament suture. Biomaterials. 1995;16:1141–8.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Miller MDFD. Measurement of subjective phenomena in primary care research: the visual analogue scale. Fam Pract Res J. 1993;13:15–24.PubMed
23.
Bowen MLSM. Episiotomy closure comparing embucrilate tissue adhesive with conventional sutures. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;78:201–5.CrossRefPubMed
24.
NICE Guideline 190. Intrapartum care. Care of healthy women and their babies. 2014.
25.
Karbanova J, Rusavy Z, Betincova L, Jansova M, Necesalova P, Kalis V. Clinical evaluation of early postpartum pain and healing outcomes after mediolateral versus lateral episiotomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;127:152–6.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Dudley L, Kettle C, Thomas PW, Ismail KMK. Perineal resuturing versus expectant management following vaginal delivery complicated by a dehisced wound (PREVIEW): a pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012766.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Greenberg JALE, Cohen AP, Ecker JL. Randomized comparison of chromic versus fast-absorbing polyglactin 910 for postpartum perineal repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(6):1308–13.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Mahomed KGA, Ashurst H, James D. The Southmead perineal suture study. A randomized comparison of suture materials and suturing techniques for repair of perineal trauma. BJOG. 1989;96:1272–80.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial
Authors
Roeland Odijk
Bernadette Hennipman
Melek Rousian
Khadija Madani
Marja Dijksterhuis
Jan Willem de Leeuw
Arjan van Hof
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Why do women choose an unregulated birth worker to birth at home in Australia: a qualitative study

Research article

High maternal mortality in Jigawa State, Northern Nigeria estimated using the sisterhood method

Research article

Associations of intimate partner violence with postnatal health practices in Bihar, India

Research article

Factors associated with perinatal mortality among public health deliveries in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, an unmatched case control study

Study protocol

Neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia caused by anti-HPA antibodies in pregnant Chinese women: a study protocol for a multicentre, prospective cohort trial

Research article

Economic evaluation of emergency obstetric care training: a systematic review