UC San Diego

Introduction and hypothesis

We investigated the efficiency and efficacy of vaginal mesh attachment using interrupted, non-barbed, delayed absorbable sutures in comparison with a running, barbed, delayed absorbable suture during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC).

Methods

Women undergoing LSC or RSC were recruited. Participants were randomized to at least six 0 PDS non-barbed interrupted sutures or at least six passes of a 1 PDS barbed suture (Quill™) on each anterior and posterior polypropylene mesh leaflet. The primary outcome was the time to attach the mesh to the vagina. The LSC and RSC groups were block randomized by suture type. Secondary outcomes included: (1) intraoperative surgeon assessment of satisfaction as measured using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), (2) postoperative POP-Q evaluation for anatomic failure, and (3) overall appearance of vaginal walls measured using a VAS.

Results

Of the 64 included subjects who were randomized, 32 had mesh attachment with the barbed suture (16 LSC, 16 RSC) and 32 had attachment with non-barbed sutures (16 LSC, 16 RSC). Among all the subjects (LSC and RSC), the non-barbed suture group had significantly longer mesh attachment times than the barbed suture group (42 vs. 29 min, p < 0.001). The non-barbed suture group had significantly better scores for intraoperative ease of suture placement, surgeon satisfaction with mesh appearance, and global satisfaction. At 12 months, there were no significant differences in anatomic failure between the suture groups or overall appearance of the vaginal walls (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The barbed suture technique was 11 - 16 min faster for attaching mesh to the vagina than the non-barbed suture technique. Anatomic outcomes at 12 months were comparable between the suture groups. It is reasonable to use a running, barbed suture in minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.