Effects of Using Barbed Suture in Myomectomy on Adhesion Formation and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome
by
, , , ,
Seyeon Won
1,
Su Hyeon Choi
1,
Nara Lee
1,
So Hyun Shim
1,
Mi Kyoung Kim
1,
Mi-La Kim
1,
Yong Wook Jung
1,
Bo Seong Yun
2 and
Seok Ju Seong
1,* 1
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Gangnam Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seoul 06135, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Ilsan Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Goyang 10414, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13(1), 92; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13010092
Submission received: 29 October 2022
/
Revised: 27 November 2022
/
Accepted: 26 December 2022
/
Published: 30 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecology)
Abstract
:Background: There is still concern regarding postoperative adhesion formation and adverse effects on pregnancy outcomes caused by barbed suture (BS) after myomectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative adhesion and pregnancy outcomes between conventional suture (CS) and BS after minimally invasive myomectomy (MIM) by robotic myomectomy (RM) or laparoscopic myomectomy (LM). Methods: The medical records of 94 women who had undergone MIM with CS and 97 who had undergone MIM with BS and achieved pregnancy were reviewed. Postoperative adhesion was evaluated following cesarean section. Results: The number of removed myomas was greater (5.3 ± 4.6 vs. 3.5 ± 3.1, p = 0.001) and the size of the largest myoma was larger (7.0 ± 2.2 vs. 5.8 ± 2.7 cm, p = 0.001) in the BS group relative to the CS group. A total of 98.9% of patients in the CS group and 45.4% in the BS group had undergone LM (p < 0.001), while the others underwent RM. There was no significant difference in the presence of postoperative adhesion at cesarean section between the BS and CS groups (45.5 vs. 43.7%, p = 0.095). Additionally, there were no intergroup differences in pregnancy complications such as preterm labor, placenta previa, accrete or abruption. Note also that in our logistic regression analysis, the suture type (BS or CS) was excluded from the independent risk factors regarding postoperative adhesion formation. Conclusions: Our data indicated that the incidence of postoperative adhesion after MIM with BS was similar when compared with CS. Also it seems that the suture type does not have a significant effect on pregnancy outcomes.
1. Introduction
It is known that quickly and properly tying surgical knots with conventional suture (CS) presents a significant challenge in minimally invasive myomectomy (MIM) [1]. Knot-tying, which in some contexts is a physically and mentally stressful process, can be obviated by using barbed suture (BS) instead. Given its barbed surface, BS does not need to be knotted by the physician. In fact, BS has already been proved to be effective in laparoscopic myomectomy (LM), reducing both suture time and, thus, intraoperative blood loss when compared with CS [2,3].
However, the major concern with BS is the risk of barb-induced adhesion formation and inflammation. Several studies have reported bowel obstruction and perforation due to adhesion formation secondary to BS [4,5]. Besides, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an animal model has revealed that BS is significantly more associated with adhesion formation than is CS [6]. Contrarily though, another RCT/animal model found no difference in adhesion formation between BS and CS [7]. Likewise, there was no BS/CS difference in a unique prospective study in which postoperative adhesion was evaluated at 2nd look laparoscopy [8]. All of this notwithstanding, it should be noted that adhesion formation and pregnancy outcomes after MIM with BS are not as clear or as well established as they are for MIM with CS.
We have performed MIMs with BS for several years due to its several advantages, but have begun to wonder if BS might actually lead to postoperative adhesion and even adverse pregnancy outcomes. The aim of the present study, then, was to compare postoperative adhesion and pregnancy outcomes between BS and CS after MIM by robotic myomectomy (RM) or LM. Postoperative adhesion was evaluated following cesarean section.
2. Materials and Methods
Our retrospective cohort study, with the approval of the relevant institutional review board (GCI-2022-09-006), was performed in a single gynecological surgery center using data collected between September 2015 and December 2020. The medical records of 94 women who had undergone MIM with CS and 97 who had undergone MIM with BS and achieved pregnancy were reviewed. Among them, postoperative adhesions and adverse pregnancy outcomes were evaluated for women who had undergone cesarean section. Moreover, all data were analyzed again only with patients who underwent LM (not RM) to unify surgical platforms.
2.1. Surgical Methods
MIM had been performed by either RM or LM. RM had been performed with the da Vinci-Si system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Four ports, including a 12-mm camera port (at the umbilicus), and three 8-mm side ports, were inserted. After insertion of all of the trocars, the surgical cart was docked vertically. The robotic right arm held monopolar curved scissors, and the left arm held tenaculum forceps. A solution of vasopressin diluted to a 0.25 U/mL concentration was injected directly into the myoma. The monopolar curved scissors performed the incision, while the tenaculum forceps applied counter-traction. LM with four ports was performed by a technique similar to the robotic one. The V-loc™ (Covidien, Dublin, Ireland) for barbed continuous suture or Vicryl (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) for conventional interrupted suture was employed to suture the uterine wall. Myomas were retrieved by electric-power morcellation.
2.2. Statistical Analysis
Student’s t-test for comparison of continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical variables were used. For determination of non-parametric statistics, Fisher’s exact test was used. Variables (p-value < 0.2) from a univariate analysis were included in a subsequent multivariable logistic regression model. The analyses were performed using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA), and p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
3. Results
The two groups’ baseline characteristics at myomectomy are provided in Table 1. Older age (35.4 ± 3.2 vs. 32.9 ± 3.2, p < 0.001) and higher BMI (22.8 ± 3.5 vs. 21.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.003) were shown in the BS group relative to the CS group. The number of removed myomas was greater (5.3 ± 4.6 vs. 3.5 ± 3.1, p = 0.001) and the size of the largest myoma was larger (7.0 ± 2.2 vs. 5.8 ± 2.7 cm, p = 0.001) in the BS group relative to the CS group. A total of 98.9% of patients in the CS group and 45.4% in the BS group had undergone LM (p < 0.001), while the others underwent RM. Heavier tumor weight (198.3 ± 185.7 vs. 127.2 ± 129.8 g, p = 0.003) and longer operative time (157.1 ± 59.5 vs. 126.9 ± 44.94 min, p < 0.001) were noted in the BS group. Otherwise, there were no significant intergroup differences. When we analyzed it without RM patients, there was no significant differences except older age in BS group (35.6 ± 3.3 vs. 32.9 ± 3.2, p < 0.001). The pregnancy outcomes are summarized in Table 2; as is apparent, there were no significant intergroup differences. Table 3 shows the surgical characteristics and outcomes at cesarean section. There were no significant intergroup differences, neither in presence of adhesion (p = 0.095) nor in adhesion site (p = 0.158). Even when we analyzed it without RM patients, there was no significant differences regarding adhesions except age (p = 0.037). Moreover, as shown in Table 4, there were no significant differences in pregnancy complications such as preterm labor, placenta previa, accrete or abruption. There was no fetal anomaly case. Note that in our logistic regression analysis, the suture type (BS or CS) was excluded from the independent risk factors regarding postoperative adhesion formation.
4. Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest cohort study to evaluate postoperative adhesion and adverse pregnancy outcomes with BS as compared with CS. There have been two studies on postoperative adhesion after myomectomy with BS. In 2020, Kumakiri et al. conducted a prospective comparative study (LM with BS vs. CS) [8]. The postoperative adhesions were evaluated by a 2nd look laparoscopy, and classified and graded. Four patients in the BS group (n = 22) and eight patients in the CS group (n = 22) showed postoperative adhesion (18.2 vs. 36.4%, p = 0.31), and it was concluded that the incidence of postoperative adhesion following the use of BS in LM was similar to that following the use of CS. The results of another prospective study by Giampaolino et al. were similar: having performed a postoperative evaluation by office transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy, they observed adhesion in four patients in the CS group (26.7%) and three patients in the BS group (17.6%) (p = 0.5) [9]. Our data carry similar implications. The rate of adhesion was not significantly different between the BS and CS groups (43.7 vs. 45.5%, p = 0.95). Of course, our study, given its retrospective nature, has an insurmountable limitation in that adhesion was not classified or graded. Nonetheless, we think that two points in our data are worth noting. Firstly, the operative time at cesarean section was not statistically different between the two groups, as indicated in Table 3 If the degree of adhesion was different between the groups, the operative time at cesarean section would have been correspondingly different. Secondly, although the BS group was expected to have more postoperative adhesion due to the removed myomas’ characteristics (i.e., larger in both number and size), adhesion at cesarean section did not, as already noted, significantly differ between the two groups. It is known, based on Takeuchi et al.’s prospective study [10], that the number and diameter of removed myomas are the factors influencing adhesion development. According to Kumakiri et al.’s study, the enucleated subserosal myoma number (odds ratio, 3.29; p < 0.001) and largest-myoma diameter (odds ratio, 1.05; p < 0.001) were associated significantly with wound protrusion, a critical factor with respect to adhesion [11]. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated that the length of the myomectomy incision is an important factor in adhesion development [11,12,13,14]. As Table 5 shows, the number and diameter of removed myomas were the risk factors regarding adhesion formation in the present study, too.
The still-limited data on the impact of BS on pregnancy outcome do not allow for any exhaustive analysis or definitive conclusions on the safety of this technique or associated risks of adverse pregnancy outcome [15]. There has been just one relevant retrospective comparison study [16], which reported two cases of intrauterine growth restriction, three cases of preeclampsia and two cases of preterm birth in its CS group (n = 38), and in its BS group (n = 32), one case of placenta previa, two cases of intrauterine growth restriction, two cases of preeclampsia and two cases of preterm birth; consequentially, adverse pregnancy outcome was deemed to be not statistically different between the two groups. Additionally, there is one RCT that compared cellular composition and proliferation in uterine healing between BS and CS in a sheep model [17]; it found that BS afforded a similar uterine healing effect to that of CS. Our own results showed that adverse pregnancy outcomes were not statistically different between BS and CS; however, it will be necessary to investigate the real impact of BS on pregnancy outcomes with a further, large prospective study.
This study has some limitations due to its retrospective nature. First, postoperative adhesions at cesarean section were not systemically classified, and the degree was not assessed. Second, the two groups were not fully equal for best comparison. Particularly, the surgical platforms were not uniform. Although the surgery type (LM vs. RM) was excluded from the independent risk factors regarding postoperative adhesion formation, the fact that most of the CS group (98.9%) had been operated on by LM is this study’s greatest weakness. Third, the study’s sample size was small, and certainly, a larger sample could have facilitated data evaluation. In fact, our cohorts might not have been sufficiently large for a meaningful pregnancy complication comparison. Each complication instance was infrequent as well, as Table 4 shows. The strength of this study, meanwhile, is its status as the largest cohort study to have evaluated postoperative adhesion and adverse pregnancy outcomes between BS and CS.
In conclusion, our data indicated that the incidence of postoperative adhesion after MIM with BS was similar to that with CS. Moreover, it seems that the suture type does not have a significant effect on pregnancy outcome.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.J.S.; Data curation, N.L., M.K.K., S.H.C. and M.-L.K.; Formal analysis, B.S.Y.; Investigation, S.H.S.; Methodology, Y.W.J.; Supervision, S.J.S.; Writing—original draft, S.W.; Writing—review & editing, S.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This manuscript received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of CHA gangnam medical center. (GCI-2022-09-006).
Informed Consent Statement
Patient consent was waived due to retrospective nature of the study and the analysis used anonymous data.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and nothing to disclose.
References
- Greenberg, J.A.; Goldman, R.H. Barbed suture: A review of the technology and clinical uses in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013, 6, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Alessandri, F.; Remorgida, V.; Venturini, P.L.; Ferrero, S. Unidirectional barbed suture versus continuous suture with intracorporeal knots in laparoscopic myomectomy: A randomized study. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2010, 17, 725–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Y.; Ma, D.; Li, X.; Zhang, Q. Role of Barbed Sutures in Repairing Uterine Wall Defects in Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016, 23, 684–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, L.; Maejima, T.; Fukahori, S.; Nishihara, S.; Yoshikawa, D.; Kono, T. Bowel obstruction and perforation secondary to barbed suture after minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair: Report of two cases and literature review. Surg. Case. Rep. 2021, 7, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clapp, B.; Klingsporn, W.; Lodeiro, C.; Wicker, E.; Christensen, L.; Jones, R.; Tyroch, A. Small bowel obstructions following the use of barbed suture: A review of the literature and analysis of the MAUDE database. Surg. Endosc. 2020, 34, 1261–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Api, M.; Boza, A.; Cikman, M.S.; Aker, F.V.; Onenerk, M. Comparison of barbed and conventional sutures in adhesion formation and histological features in a rat myomectomy model: Randomized single blind controlled trial. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2015, 185, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Einarsson, J.I.; Grazul-Bilska, A.T.; Vonnahme, K.A. Barbed vs. standard suture: Randomized single-blinded comparison of adhesion formation and ease of use in an animal model. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2011, 18, 716–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kumakiri, J.; Kikuchi, I.; Kitade, M.; Ozaki, R.; Kawasaki, Y. Incidence of Postoperative Adhesions after Laparoscopic Myomectomy with Barbed Suture. Gynecol. Obstet. Investig. 2020, 85, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giampaolino, P.; De Rosa, N.; Tommaselli, G.A.; Santangelo, F.; Nappi, C.; Sansone, A.; Bifulco, G. Comparison of bidirectional barbed suture Stratafix and conventional suture with intracorporeal knots in laparoscopic myomectomy by office transvaginal hydrolaparoscopic follow-up: A preliminary report. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2015, 195, 146–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Takeuchi, H.; Kitade, M.; Kikuchi, I.; Shimanuki, H.; Kumakiri, J.; Takeda, S. Influencing factors of adhesion development and the efficacy of adhesion-preventing agents in patients undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy as evaluated by a second-look laparoscopy. Fertil. Steril. 2008, 89, 1247–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kumakiri, J.; Kikuchi, I.; Kitade, M.; Matsuoka, S.; Kono, A.; Ozaki, R.; Takeda, S. Association between uterine repair at laparoscopic myomectomy and postoperative adhesions. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2012, 91, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coddington, C.C.; Grow, D.R.; Ahmed, M.S.; Toner, J.P.; Cook, E.; Diamond, M.P. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist pretreatment did not decrease postoperative adhesion formation after abdominal myomectomy in a randomized control trial. Fertil. Steril. 2009, 91, 1909–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Trew, G.; Pistofidis, G.; Pados, G.; Lower, A.; Mettler, L.; Wallwiener, D.; Korell, M.; Pouly, J.L.; Coccia, M.E.; Audebert, A.; et al. Gynaecological endoscopic evaluation of 4% icodextrin solution: A European, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study of the efficacy and safety in the reduction of de novo adhesions after laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. Hum. Reprod. 2011, 26, 2015–2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Herrmann, A.; Torres-de la Roche, L.A.; Krentel, H.; Cezar, C.; de Wilde, M.S.; Devassy, R.; De Wilde, R.L. Adhesions after Laparoscopic Myomectomy: Incidence, Risk Factors, Complications, and Prevention. Gynecol. Minim. Invasive Ther. 2020, 9, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Gardella, B.; Dominoni, M.; Iacobone, A.D.; De Silvestri, A.; Tinelli, C.; Bogliolo, S.; Spinillo, A. What Is the Role of Barbed Suture in Laparoscopic Myomectomy? A Meta-Analysis and Pregnancy Outcome Evaluation. Gynecol. Obstet. Investig. 2018, 83, 521–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arena, A.; Degli Esposti, E.; Cristani, G.; Orsini, B.; Moro, E.; Raimondo, D.; Del Forno, S.; Lenzi, J.; Casadio, P.; Seracchioli, R. Comparison of fertility outcomes after laparoscopic myomectomy for barbed versus nonbarbed sutures. Fertil. Steril. 2021, 115, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Einarsson, J.I.; Vonnahme, K.A.; Sandberg, E.M.; Grazul-Bilska, A.T. Barbed compared with standard suture: Effects on cellular composition and proliferation of the healing wound in the ovine uterus. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2012, 91, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of women at myomectomy.
| All | LM Only | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | Conventional Suture (n = 94) | Barbed Suture (n = 97) | p | Conventional Suture (n = 93) | Barbed Suture (n = 44) | p |
| Age, year | 32.9 ± 3.2 | 35.4 ± 3.2 | <0.001 | 32.9 ± 3.2 | 35.6 ± 3.3 | <0.001 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 21.4 ± 2.8 | 22.8 ± 3.5 | 0.003 | 21.4 ± 2.8 | 22.4 ± 3.9 | 0.08 |
| Nulliparous | 0.029 | 0.102 | ||||
| No | 94 (100) | 91 (93.8) | 93 (100) | 42 (95.5) | ||
| Yes | 0 (0) | 6(6.2) | 0 (0) | 2(4.5) | ||
| Abdominal surgery history | 0.483 | 0.635 | ||||
| No | 81 (86.2) | 80 (82.5) | 81 (87.1) | 37 (84.1) | ||
| Yes | 13 (13.8) | 17 (17.5) | 12 (12.9) | 7 (15.9) | ||
| Preoperative symptoms | 0.696 | 0.735 | ||||
| Bleeding | 18 (19.1) | 61 (16.5) | 17 (18.3) | 11 (25.0) | ||
| Pain | 15 (16.0) | 11 (11.3) | 15 (16.1) | 4 (9.1) | ||
| Compression | 5 (5.3) | 6 (6.2) | 5 (5.4) | 0 (0) | ||
| Infertility | 43 (45.7) | 43 (44.3) | 43 (46.2) | 19 (43.2) | ||
| Growing size | 6 (6.4) | 12 (12.4) | 6 (6.5) | 6 (13.6) | ||
| No symptoms | 7 (7.4) | 9 (9.3) | 7 (7.5) | 4 (9.1) | ||
| Adhesions at myomectomy | 0.443 | 0.873 | ||||
| No | 60 (63.8) | 67 (69.1) | 60 (64.5) | 29 (65.9) | ||
| Yes | 34 (36.2) | 30 (30.9) | 33 (35.5) | 15 (34.1) | ||
| Type of operation | <0.001 | - | ||||
| Laparoscopy | 93 (98.9) | 44 (45.4) | 93 (100) | 44 (100) | ||
| Robot | 1 (1.1) | 53 (54.6) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Use of adhesion barrier | 0.357 | 0.920 | ||||
| No | 34 (36.2) | 29 (29.9) | 33 (35.5) | 16 (36.4) | ||
| Yes | 60 (63.8) | 68 (70.1) | 60 (64.5) | 28 (63.6) | ||
| Operative time, min | 126.9 ± 44.94 | 157.1 ± 59.5 | <0.001 | 126.4 ± 44.89 | 129.6 ± 58.3 | 0.731 |
| Estimated blood loss, mL | 247.2 ± 215.0 | 267.9 ± 204.7 | 0.498 | 247.7 ± 216.1 | 247.7 ± 202.6 | 1.0 |
| Concurrent ovarian surgery | 0.383 | 0.492 | ||||
| No | 61(64.9) | 57 (58.8) | 60 (64.5) | 31 (70.5) | ||
| Yes | 33 (35.1) | 407 (41.2) | 33 (35.5) | 13 (29.5) | ||
| Transfusion | 0.721 | 1.0 | ||||
| No | 91 (96.8) | 92 (94.8) | 90 (96.8) | 43 (97.7) | ||
| Yes | 3 (3.2) | 5 (5.2) | 3 (3.2) | 1 (2.3) | ||
| Endometrium exposure | 0.797 | 0.291 | ||||
| No | 89(94.7) | 91 (93.8) | 88 (94.6) | 39 (88.6) | ||
| Yes | 5 (5.3) | 6 (6.2) | 5 (5.4) | 5 (11.4) | ||
| Total myoma, n | 3.5 ±3.1 | 5.3 ± 4.6 | 0.001 | 3.5 ± 3.2 | 4.3 ± 4.0 | 0.117 |
| Largest myoma | ||||||
| Size, cm | 5.8 ± 2.7 | 7.0 ± 2.2 | 0.001 | 5.8 ± 2.7 | 6.2 ± 1.9 | 0.289 |
| Location | 0.683 | 0.461 | ||||
| Anterior | 40 (42.6) | 40 (41.2) | 40 (43.0) | 22 (50.0) | ||
| Fundus | 39 (41.5) | 35 (36.1) | 38 (40.9) | 15 (34.1) | ||
| Posterior | 9 (9.6) | 13 (13.4) | 9 (9.7) | 6 (13.6) | ||
| Lateral | 6 (6.4) | 9 (9.3) | 6 (6.5) | 1 (2.3) | ||
| Type (FIGO classification) | 0.654 | 0.066 | ||||
| Submucosal (1–2) | 3 (3.2) | 2 (2.1) | 3 (3.2) | 2 (4.5) | ||
| Deep intramural (3–4) | 47 (50.0) | 50 (51.5) | 46 (49.5) | 27 (61.4) | ||
| Intramural (5) | 22 (23.4) | 29 (29.9) | 22 (23.7) | 9 (20.5) | ||
| Subserosal (6) | 17 (18.1) | 14 (14.4) | 17 (18.3) | 6 (13.6) | ||
| Pedunculated (7) | 1 (1.1) | 1 (1.0) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | ||
| Intraligamentary (8) | 4 (4.3) | 1 (1.0) | 4 (4.3) | 0 (0) | ||
| Tumor weight, g | 127.2 ± 129.8 | 198.3 ± 185.7 | 0.003 | 125.9 ± 129.9 | 124.6 ± 99.1 | 0.955 |
Values are presented as number (%), median (range) or mean ± standard deviation. BMI, Body mass index; n, number; LM, laparoscopic myomectomy; RM, robotic myomectomy; FIGO, The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Table 2.
Pregnancy outcomes after myomectomy.
| All | LM Only | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Conventional Suture (n = 94) | Barbed Suture (n = 97) | p | Conventional Suture (n = 93) | Barbed Suture (n = 44) | p |
| 0.554 | 0.224 | |||||
| Term cesarean delivery | 85 (90.5) | 87 (89.7) | 84 (90.3) | 36 (81.8) | ||
| Preterm cesarean delivery | 3 (3.2) | 6 (6.2) | 3 (3.2) | 4 (9.1) | ||
| Miscarriage | 5 (5.3) | 4 (4.1) | 5 (5.4) | 4 (9.1) | ||
| Hysterotomy due to IUFD | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | ||
| Vaginal delivery | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Values are presented as number (%). LM, laparoscopic myomectomy; n, number.
Table 3.
Surgical characteristics and outcomes at cesarean section.
| All | LM Only | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Conventional Suture (n = 88) | Barbed Suture (n = 93) | p | Conventional Suture (n = 87) | Barbed Suture (n = 40) | p |
| Age (years) | 36.5 ± 2.9 | 37.1 ± 3.1 | 0.120 | 36.4 ± 2.9 | 37.6 ± 3.3 | 0.037 |
| Coexisting diseases | ||||||
| Diabetes mellitus | 9 (10.2) | 8 (8.6) | 0.708 | 9 (10.3) | 1 (2.5) | 0.169 |
| Hypertension | 4 (4.5) | 4 (4.3) | 1.0 | 4 (4.6) | 2 (5.0) | 1.0 |
| Hypothyroidism | 10 (11.4) | 14 (15.1) | 0.464 | 10 (11.5) | 5 (12.5) | 1.0 |
| Thyrotoxicosis | 3 (3.4) | 3 (3.2) | 1.0 | 3 (3.4) | 1 (2.5) | 1.0 |
| Operative time (min) | 57.4 ± 10.7 | 58.8 ± 11.7 | 0.120 | 57.3 ± 10.7 | 519.3 ± 10.5 | 0.332 |
| Estimated blood loss (mL) | 605.7 ± 210.8 | 563.8 ± 115.3 | 0.096 | 606.9 ± 211.7 | 572.5 ± 115.3 | 0.338 |
| Presence of adhesion | 0.095 | 0.153 | ||||
| No | 48 (54.5) | 62 (66.7) | 47 (54.0) | 27 (67.5) | ||
| Yes | 40 (45.5) | 31 (43.7) | 40 (46.0) | 13 (32.5) | ||
| Adhesion site | 0.158 | 0.652 | ||||
| Bladder | 4 (10.0) | 8 (25.8) | 4 (10.0) | 3 (23.1) | ||
| Omentum | 2 (5.0) | 2 (6.5) | 2 (5.0) | 1 (7.7) | ||
| Adnexa | 4 (10.0) | 4 (12.9) | 4 (10.0) | 0 (0) | ||
| Intestine | 21 (52.5) | 8 (25.8) | 21 (52.5) | 4 (30.8) | ||
| Uterus alone | 9 (22.5) | 9 (29.0) | 9 (22.5) | 5 (38.5) | ||
| Birth weight of baby (g) | 3004.9 ± 415.0 | 3073.8 ± 508.7 | 0.320 | 3004.5 ± 417.4 | 2991.3 ± 611.2 | 0.887 |
| Apgar score at 1 min | 7.8 ± 0.9 | 7.9 ± 0.4 | 0.349 | 7.8 ± 0.9 | 7.9 ± 0.4 | 0.532 |
| Apgar score at 5 min | 8.8 ± 1.1 | 9.0 ± 0.1 | 0.078 | 8.8 ± 1.0 | 9.0 ± 0.2 | 0.114 |
Values are presented as number (%), median (range) or mean ± standard deviation. LM, laparoscopic myomectomy.
Table 4.
Pregnancy complications in women at cesarean section.
| All | LM Only | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Conventional Suture (n = 88) | Barbed Suture (n = 93) | p | Conventional Suture (n = 87) | Barbed Suture (n = 40) | p |
| Admission due to preterm labor | 14 (15.9) | 10 (10.6) | 0.294 | 14 (16.1) | 7 (17.1) | 0.889 |
| Pregnancy-induced hypertension | 3 (3.4) | 3 (3.3) | 1.0 | 2 (2.3) | 1 (2.5) | 1.0 |
| Premature rupture of membranes | 1 (1.1) | 2 (2.2) | 1.0 | 1 (1.1) | 1 (2.5) | 0.529 |
| Uterine rupture | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 0.486 | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 0.486 |
| Placenta previa | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 0.486 | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 1.0 |
| Placenta accrete | 2 (2.3) | 4 (4.3) | 0.683 | 2 (2.3) | 2 (5.0) | 0.59 |
| Placenta abruption | 0 (0) | 1 (1.1) | 1.0 | 0 (0) | 1 (2.5) | 0.315 |
Values are presented as number (%). LM, laparoscopic myomectomy.
Table 5.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for independent risk factors regarding adhesion formation after myomectomy.
Table 5.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for independent risk factors regarding adhesion formation after myomectomy.
| Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical Factors | OR (95% CI) | p | OR (95% CI) | p |
| Age ≥ 34 a | 1.317 (0.625–2.776) | 0.470 | ||
| BMI ≥ 22.1 kg/m2 b | 0.809 (0.386–1.697) | 0.576 | ||
| Type of operation (LM vs. RM) | 0.707 (0.259–1.931) | 0.707 | ||
| Suture methods (Conventional vs. Barbed) | 0.561 (0.221–1.423) | 0.224 | ||
| Operative time ≥ 142.3 min b | 8.207(3.330–20.228) | <0.001 | 0.132 (0.055–0.315) | <0.001 |
| Multiple myoma (n ≥ 5 a) | 2.585(1.186–5.633) | 0.017 | 0.470 (0.225–0.981) | 0.044 |
| Lst myoma ≥ 4.4 cm b | 0.331(0.124–0.887) | 0.028 | 3.360 (1.287–8.769) | 0.013 |
| Sum weight ≥ 164.1 g b | 0.438 (0.182–1.052) | 0.065 | 2.742 (1.170–6.427) | 0.020 |
CI, confidence interval; vs., versus; OR, odds ratio; Lst, largest; LM, laparoscopic myomectomy; RM, Robotic myomectomy; a Median value in study population, b Mean value in study population.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Won, S.; Choi, S.H.; Lee, N.; Shim, S.H.; Kim, M.K.; Kim, M.-L.; Jung, Y.W.; Yun, B.S.; Seong, S.J. Effects of Using Barbed Suture in Myomectomy on Adhesion Formation and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13010092
AMA Style
Won S, Choi SH, Lee N, Shim SH, Kim MK, Kim M-L, Jung YW, Yun BS, Seong SJ. Effects of Using Barbed Suture in Myomectomy on Adhesion Formation and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2023; 13(1):92. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13010092
Chicago/Turabian StyleWon, Seyeon, Su Hyeon Choi, Nara Lee, So Hyun Shim, Mi Kyoung Kim, Mi-La Kim, Yong Wook Jung, Bo Seong Yun, and Seok Ju Seong. 2023. "Effects of Using Barbed Suture in Myomectomy on Adhesion Formation and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome" Journal of Personalized Medicine 13, no. 1: 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13010092
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
