%0 Journal Article
%T Is absorbable suture superior to permanent suture for uterosacral ligament suspension?
%A Peng L
%A Liu YH
%A He SX
%A Di XP
%A Shen H
%A Luo DY
%J Neurourol Urodyn
%V 39
%N 7
%D 09 2020
%M 32658368
%F 2.367
%R 10.1002/nau.24434
%X The aims of this study were to compare surgical results and suture-related complications after uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) with absorbable suture (AS) vs permanent suture (PS).<BR>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, clinicalTrial.gov, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles that compared AS with PS for USLS. The primary outcomes were surgical success rate and suture-related complications (suture exposure/erosion and suture removal). Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was applied to conduct all analyses.<BR>Four articles involving 647 patients were eventually included. Our findings demonstrated that AS had a similar surgical success rates in comparison with PS (RR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.94-1.06) and that no significant differences in anatomic failure rates were noted between two groups (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.65-1.86). Subgroup analyses in anatomic failure revealed no statistical differences in apical prolapse ≥1/2 TVL (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.48-1.75), recurrent prolapse beyond the hymen (RR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.68-2.04), as well as in recurrent anterior, posterior or apical prolapse (P = .14, P = .08, P = .09, respectively). However, AS group indicated a lower risk in suture exposure/erosion (RR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.63) and lower suture removal rate (RR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18-0.67).<BR>Due to similar surgical results, less suture exposure/erosion and less suture removal, the current data supported that AS is as effective as PS, but with a better safety profile.