Non-absorbable versus absorbable sutures for anterior colporrhaphy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial in South Korea

Myung Jae Jeon, Dong Hoon Suh, Chul Hong Kim, Hyun-Hee Cho, Jung-Ho Shin, Sa Ra Lee, Yong Wook Jung, Soo Rim Kim, Mi Kyung Kong, Myung Jae Jeon, Dong Hoon Suh, Chul Hong Kim, Hyun-Hee Cho, Jung-Ho Shin, Sa Ra Lee, Yong Wook Jung, Soo Rim Kim, Mi Kyung Kong

Abstract

Introduction: The anterior vaginal wall is the segment most commonly affected by prolapse. Traditionally, anterior vaginal wall prolapse is repaired via anterior colporrhaphy, which is known to have a high recurrence rate. Several factors might affect the outcome of anterior colporrhaphy, and the use of absorbable sutures might also be associated with the high recurrence rate because the sutures might not be able to retain adequate strength until the plicated pubocervical fascia remodels and regains maximum tensile strength. Nonetheless, no comparative data exist about the relative efficacy and safety of anterior colporrhaphy using non-absorbable versus absorbable sutures. The objective of this study is to compare the surgical outcomes of anterior colporrhaphy using non-absorbable sutures with those of anterior colporrhaphy using absorbable sutures.

Methods and analysis: This is a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial. Anterior colporrhaphy will be performed in a traditional manner with midline plication of the fibromuscular layer using either non-absorbable or absorbable sutures. The primary outcome is composite surgical success 1 year after surgery defined as the absence of all of the following: (1) anterior vaginal descent beyond the hymen, (2) the presence of vaginal bulge symptoms and (3) retreatment for recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse with either surgery or pessary. The secondary outcomes include the individual components of the composite primary end point, anatomical outcomes, condition-specific quality of life and adverse events related to anterior colporrhaphy. The planned number of participants is 192.

Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (H-1810-037-977). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and the findings will be presented at scientific meetings.

Trial registration number: NCT03736811.

Keywords: anterior colporrhaphy; anterior vaginal wall prolapse; sutures.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart. POPQ, pelvic organ prolapse quantification.

References

    1. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, et al. . Pelvic organ prolapse in the women's health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1160–6. 10.1067/mob.2002.123819
    1. Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, et al. . Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:1299–306. 10.1067/mob.2001.119081
    1. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. . Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;11:CD004014. 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub6
    1. Halpern-Elenskaia K, Umek W, Bodner-Adler B, et al. . Anterior colporrhaphy: a standard operation? systematic review of the technical aspects of a common procedure in randomized controlled trials. Int Urogynecol J 2018;29:781–8. 10.1007/s00192-017-3510-5
    1. Jeon MJ, Chung SM, Jung HJ, et al. . Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2008;66:268–73. 10.1159/000149851
    1. Margulies RU, Rogers MAM, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;202:124–34. 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.052
    1. Maxson S, Lopez EA, Yoo D, et al. . Concise review: role of mesenchymal stem cells in wound repair. Stem Cells Transl Med 2012;1:142–9. 10.5966/sctm.2011-0018
    1. Greenberg JA, Clark RM. Advances in suture material for obstetric and gynecologic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009;2:146–58.
    1. Murphy M. Restrictions and limitations after pelvic floor surgery: what’s the evidence? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017;29:349–53. 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000393
    1. Dietz HP, Hankins KJ, Wong V. The natural history of cystocele recurrence. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25:1053–7. 10.1007/s00192-014-2339-4
    1. Chung CP, Miskimins R, Kuehl TJ, et al. . Permanent suture used in uterosacral ligament suspension offers better anatomical support than delayed absorbable suture. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:223–7. 10.1007/s00192-011-1556-3
    1. Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, et al. . Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:1837–40. 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.065
    1. Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, et al. . Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:981–7. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a8a5e4
    1. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, et al. . The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:10–17. 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0
    1. Yoo E-H, Jeon MJ, Ahn K-H, et al. . Translation and linguistic validation of Korean version of short form of pelvic floor distress inventory-20, pelvic floor impact questionnaire-7. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2013;56:330–2. 10.5468/ogs.2013.56.5.330
    1. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, et al. . Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the optimal randomized trial. JAMA 2014;311:1023–34. 10.1001/jama.2014.1719

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다