Suppr超能文献

用于骶棘韧带固定的永久性或可吸收缝合材料:这重要吗?

Permanent or absorbable suture material for sacrospinous ligament fixation: Does it matter?

作者信息

Padoa Anna, Ziv Yuval, Tsviban Anna, Tomashev Roni, Smorgick Noam, Fligelman Tal

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shamir Assaf Harofe Medical Center, Tsrifin, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

出版信息

Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023 Apr;283:112-117. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.02.014. Epub 2023 Feb 17.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate success and safety of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) using permanent versus absorbable suture materials 12 months following surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Following IRB approval, the electronic medical records of women who underwent SSLF in the gynecology department of a university-affiliated medical center from November 2012 to September 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. SSLF was carried out using Capio®and Digitex™, with either absorbable (polyglactin-910 or polydioxanone) sutures (group 1), or permanent (polypropylene) sutures (group 2), Pre-operative and post-operative assessment included prolapse staging using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system and validated quality of life questionnaires (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12). Patients with postoperative information on objective and subjective outcome at 12 months were included in final analysis. Anatomical success was defined as POP stage < 2 at 12-months following surgery. For statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney test was used for continuous variables, Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables, and Chi-squared test of independence for variables with>2 categories.

RESULTS

During the study period, 234 women underwent SSLF. One-hundred and forty-two patients (60.7 %) returned at the 12-month follow-up and were included in final analysis. Seventy-two (50.7 %) patients had absorbable suture and 70 patients (49.3 %) had permanent suture. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in group 1 [100 (50-150) cc vs 50 (50-100) cc respectively, p =.016]. Moderate to severe pain on POD-1 was significantly higher in group 2 [VAS: 2.00 (0.00-4.00) vs 4.00 (3.00-5.75) respectively, p =.001]. Anatomical success, defined as POP ≤ stage 2 at 12 months, was similar between groups: 69 % in group 1 vs 67 % in group 2 (p =.77). Subjective cure was similar between groups, 97.2 % in group 1 vs 94.3 % in group 2 (p =.44). At the 12-month follow-up, none of the patients had gluteal pain. The rate of de-novo dyspareunia was similar between groups: 4 women (5.9 %) in the absorbable suture group versus 2 women (3.3 %) in the permanent suture group (p =.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that absorbable or permanent suture material does not affect outcome of SSLF. Permanent sutures may be related to increased immediate postoperative pain.

摘要

目的

评估术后12个月使用永久性与可吸收缝合材料进行骶棘韧带固定术(SSLF)的成功率和安全性。

研究设计

经机构审查委员会(IRB)批准,对2012年11月至2021年9月在某大学附属医院妇科接受SSLF的女性的电子病历进行回顾性分析。使用Capio®和Digitex™进行SSLF,采用可吸收(聚乙醇酸-910或聚二氧杂环己酮)缝线(第1组)或永久性(聚丙烯)缝线(第2组)。术前和术后评估包括使用盆腔器官脱垂量化系统进行脱垂分期以及经过验证的生活质量问卷(盆底困扰量表和盆腔器官脱垂/尿失禁性功能问卷-12)。纳入最终分析的患者为术后12个月有客观和主观结果信息者。解剖学成功定义为术后12个月盆腔器官脱垂(POP)分期<2期。统计分析中,连续变量采用Mann-Whitney检验,二分变量采用Fisher精确检验,类别>2的变量采用独立性卡方检验。

结果

研究期间共有234名女性接受了SSLF。142例患者(60.7%)在12个月随访时返回并纳入最终分析。72例(50.7%)患者使用可吸收缝线,70例(49.3%)患者使用永久性缝线。第1组估计失血量显著更高[分别为100(50 - 150)cc和50(50 - 100)cc,p = 0.016]。第2组术后第1天中度至重度疼痛显著更高[视觉模拟评分(VAS):分别为2.00(0.00 - 4.00)和4.00(3.00 - 5.75),p = 0.001]。定义为术后12个月POP≤2期的解剖学成功率在两组间相似:第1组为69%,第2组为67%(p = 0.77)。主观治愈率在两组间相似,第1组为97.2%,第2组为94.3%(p = 0.44)。在12个月随访时,所有患者均无臀痛。两组间新发性交困难发生率相似:可吸收缝线组4例女性(5.9%),永久性缝线组2例女性(3.3%)(p = 0.49)。

结论

我们的研究结果表明,可吸收或永久性缝合材料不影响SSLF的结果。永久性缝线可能与术后即刻疼痛增加有关。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验