Barbed versus conventional 2-layer continuous running sutures for laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure.
We compared results using unidirectional barbed sutures and conventional sutures for vaginal cuff closure during total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH).The electronic medical records and surgical videos of 170 patients who underwent TLH between January 2013 and March 2015 at Uijeong-bu St. Mary's Hospital of Catholic University of Korea were reviewed. Vaginal cuffs were closed using the 2-layer continuous running technique with unidirectional barbed sutures (V-Loc; Covidien, Mansfield, MA) in 64 patients and with polycolic acid Vicryl; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ sutures in 106 patients. Procedure time, clinical characteristics, and postoperative complications were compared between the 2 study groups. There were no differences in clinical characteristics (age, body mass index, and demographic data) between groups. The mean suturing time was significantly reduced in the barbed group (7.2 vs 12.2 minutes; P < 0.001), although the mean number of stitches was greater than in the Vicryl group (14.1 vs 12.3, P < 0.001). Perioperative complications, including episodes of vaginal bleeding, vaginal cuff cellulitis, and postoperative fever, did not differ between groups. There were no instances of vaginal cuff dehiscence in either group. Unidirectional barbed sutures can be used safely to reduce procedure time and surgical difficulty relative to conventional sutures in laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure.
aDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital bDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital cDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jin Hwi
JH
Kim
Seung Won
SW
Byun
Jae Yeon
JY
Song
Yeon Hee
YH
Kim
Hee Joong
HJ
Lee
Tae Chul
TC
Park
Keun Ho
KH
Lee
Soo Young
SY
Hur
Jong Sup
JS
Park
Sung Jong
SJ
Lee
D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007044:Hysterectomy / Q000379:methods*; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D061646:Operative Time; D011098:Polyglactin 910 / Q000627:therapeutic use; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology; D056910:Republic of Korea; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013536:Suture Techniques; D013537:Sutures; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014621:Vagina / Q000601:surgery
D011098:Polyglactin 910
Gynecol Surg. 2012 Nov;9(4):393-400
23144640
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Sep;170(1):219-21
23820139
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;120(3):516-23
22914459
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2002 Nov;9(4):474-80
12386359
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Mar;52(1):53-6
23548218
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013 Apr;23(4):347-50
23573880
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Jun;117(3):220-3
22445426
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):CD003677
19588344
Int J Surg. 2015 Jul;19:27-30
25980394
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014 Jun;40(6):1695-9
24888936
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2012 Sep;21(5):369-71
22145693
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jan-Feb;18(1):92-5
21094097
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Sep;292(3):489-97
25700658
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010 Dec;282(6):631-8
19943055
Int J Surg. 2014;12(4):258-68
24503123
Surg Technol Int. 2013 Sep;23:143-8
23860935
Surg Innov. 2015 Oct;22(5):528-39
25320107
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Mar;121(3):654-73
23635631
JSLS. 2014 Jan-Mar;18(1):83-8
24680149
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Jul-Aug;20(4):492-8
23680517
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jul-Aug;18(4):528-30
21777845
JSLS. 2015 Apr-Jun;19(2):null
25901104
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013 Aug;35(8):718-22
24007707
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Mar-Apr;18(2):218-23
21354068