Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2012 Jul;23(7):941-5.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1708-0. Epub 2012 Mar 9.

High uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension: comparison of absorbable vs. permanent suture for apical fixation

Seshadri Kasturi  1 , Miriam Bentley-Taylor, Patrick J Woodman, Colin L Terry, Douglass S Hale
Affiliations
Comparative Study

High uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension: comparison of absorbable vs. permanent suture for apical fixation

Seshadri Kasturi et al. Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Jul.

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: The primary objective of this study was to compare outcomes of absorbable and permanent suture for apical support with high uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension (HUSLS). The secondary objective was to investigate the rate of suture erosion.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent HUSLS with delayed absorbable and primarily permanent suture. Apical support was calculated as a new variable: Percent of Perfect Ratio (POP-R). This variable measures apical support as the position of the apex in relation to vaginal length.

Results: At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in apical support between the two groups. The number of patients who suffered from suture erosion in the cohort that received permanent suture was 11 (22%).

Conclusions: Permanent suture, in comparison with delayed absorbable suture, for HUSLS does not offer significantly better apical support at short-term follow-up. It is also associated with a high rate of suture erosion.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Jul;21(7):813-8 - PubMed
    1. Int Urogynecol J. 2010 May;21(5):515-22 - PubMed
    1. Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Nov;22(11):1389-94 - PubMed
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jul;175(1):10-7 - PubMed
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Dec;183(6):1402-10; discussion 1410-1 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources