Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: A Retrospective Cohort of Absorbable and Permanent Suture Groups
The aim of this study was to compare anatomic results after vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension with absorbable versus permanent suture.Methods
We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension, from 2006 to 2015. We compared 2 groups: (1) absorbable suspension suture and (2) permanent suspension suture (even if accompanied by absorbable suture). Our primary outcome was composite anatomic failure defined as (1) recurrent prolapse in any compartment past the hymen or (2) retreatment for prolapse. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, and categorical variables were analyzed using χ2 or Fisher exact test. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to control for confounders. P < 0.05 was considered significant.Results
Of the 242 patients with medium-term follow-up (3 months to 2 years after surgery), 188 underwent vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension with only absorbable suture, and 54 underwent suspension with permanent suture. Compared with the absorbable suture cohort, the permanent suture cohort was more likely to have had advanced preoperative prolapse (P = 0.01), less likely to have had a prior hysterectomy (P = 0.01), and less likely to have undergone a concomitant posterior colporrhaphy/perineoplasty (P < 0.01). Overall, there were no differences in composite anatomic failure between the absorbable and permanent suture groups (17.0% vs 20.4%, P = 0.41). In multivariable logistic regression analyses, when controlling for covariates, there remained no difference in composite anatomic failure between permanent and absorbable suture groups.Conclusions
Completion of vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension using only absorbable suture affords similar anatomic outcomes in the medium term as compared with suspension with additional permanent suture.