The aim of this study was to compare the surgical results and the complications of absorbable suture (AS) versus permanent suture (PS) in sacrocolpopexy (SCP).
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles in which researchers compared AS with PS in SCP. The primary outcomes were the surgical success rate and suture-related complications (suture exposure/erosion, mesh erosion, and suture removal). All analyses were performed with Review Manager 5.3.
Four articles involving 689 patients were ultimately included. Our findings demonstrated that AS had similar surgical success rates to those of PS (OR=1.34; 95% CI, 0.60-2.96) and no significant differences in failure rates were noted between the two groups (OR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.66). Subgroup analyses in patients with anatomical failure revealed no significant differences in recurrent posterior prolapse (OR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.10) or in recurrent apical (OR=0.64; 95% CI, 0.03-13.66) or anterior prolapse (OR=0.45; 95% CI, 0.13-1.57). However, the AS group were at a lower risk of suture exposure/erosion (OR=0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.58) and a lower suture removal rate (OR=0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.61) and retreatment (OR=0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82), but the mesh erosion was not significantly different (OR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.49-2.08).
The data showed that AS had a similar success rate, less exposure/erosion, and were less likely to be removed and require retreatment than PS, which supported the notion that AS is as effective as PS but safer.

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).
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.
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).
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.