- •Type of suture material does not affect outcome of sacrospinous ligament fixation.
- •Permanent sutures may be related to increased immediate postoperative pain.
- •Persistent gluteal pain after sacrospinous ligament fixation is a rare occurrence.
To evaluate success and safety of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) using permanent versus absorbable suture materials 12 months following surgery.
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.
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).
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.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Anterior Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation: A Safe Route for Apical Repair.Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020 Aug; 26: e33-e36
- How we do an anterior sacrospinous ligament fixation for vaginal vault prolapse.Int Urogynecol J. 2021 Dec; 32: 3305-3308
- Gluteal and Posterior Thigh Pain From a Suture Compared With an Anchor-Based Device in Patients Undergoing Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Jan; 139: 97-106
- Comparison of Two Different Suture Materials for Transvaginal Sacrospinous Fixation of the Vault: A Prospective Randomized Trial.J Gynecol Surg. 2013 Dec; 29: 281-286
- Suture erosion rates and long-term surgical outcomes in patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament suspension with braided polyester suture.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May; 198: 600.e1-600.e4
- Outcomes study: A comparison of cure rates in 695 patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament fixation alone and with other site-specific procedures—A 16-year study.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun; 188: 1509-1515
- Comparison of 2 Transvaginal Surgical Approaches and Perioperative Behavioral Therapy for Apical Vaginal Prolapse: The OPTIMAL Randomized Trial.JAMA. 2014 Mar 12; 311: 1023
- The Surgical Suture.Aesthet Surg J. 2019; (Mar 14;39(Supplement_2):S67–72)
- Factors influencing wound complications: A clinical and experimental study.Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1983; 65: 71-77
- The Search for an Ideal Method of Abdominal Fascial Closure: A Meta-Analysis.Ann Surg. 2000 Mar; 231: 436-442
- Is absorbable suture superior to permanent suture for uterosacral ligament suspension?.Neurourol Urodyn. 2020 Sep; 39: 1958-1965
- Absorbable versus Permanent Suture for Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Treatment of Apical Prolapse.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022 Jun; 29: 784-790
- Suture Complication Rates and Surgical Outcomes According to the Nonabsorbable Suture Materials Used in Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: Polyester versus Polypropylene.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Aug; 28: 1503-1507
- Validation of Hebrew Versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire, and the Urgency, Severity and Impact Questionnaire: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive.Surgery. 2012; 18: 329-331
- Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7).Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul; 193: 103-113
- A short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12).Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003 Aug 1; 14: 164-168
- The minimum important difference for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire.Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Oct; 25: 1321-1326
- An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction.Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Jan; 21: 5-26
- Sacrospinous vaginal fixation - current status: Sacrospinous fixation.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 May; 90: 429-436
- Safety and Efficacy of Sacrospinous Vault Suspension.Int Urogynecol J. 2002 Oct; 13: 308-313
- Late suture site complications of sacrospinous ligament fixation.Europ J Obstetr Gynecol Reproduct Biol. 2019 Nov; 242: 126-130
Hardiman P, Drutz HP. Sacrospinous vault suspension and abdominal colposacropexy: Success rates and complications. AmJ Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 5.
- A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Dec; 183: 1365-1374
- Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: A Retrospective Cohort of Absorbable and Permanent Suture Groups.Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018 May; 24: 207-212
- High uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension: comparison of absorbable vs. permanent suture for apical fixation.Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Jul; 23: 941-945
- A randomized controlled trial of permanent vs absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension.Int Urogynecol J. 2021 Apr; 32: 785-790
- Iliococcygeus or sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse.Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jul; 98: 40-44
- Buttock pain after sacrospinous hysteropexy.Int Urogynecol J. 2008 Dec; 19: 1729-1730
- Gluteal and Posterior Thigh Pain in the Postoperative Period and the Need for Intervention After Sacrospinous Ligament Colpopexy.Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jul; 20: 208-211
- Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse.Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Nov; 24: 1783-1790
Published online: February 16, 2023
Accepted: February 14, 2023
Received in revised form: February 11, 2023
Received: October 31, 2022
© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.