Advertisement

Suture type for hysterotomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

      OBJECTIVE

      Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated an association between uterine closure technique at the time of cesarean delivery and short- and long-term operative outcomes with varied results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine types of suture material used for cesarean delivery.

      DATA SOURCES

      Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception of each database to October 2021.

      STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

      All randomized controlled trials that compared types of suture materials used for hysterotomy closure during low-transverse cesarean delivery at ≥24 weeks’ gestation and examined maternal outcomes were included for this review. The primary outcome was estimated blood loss. Secondary outcomes included additional surgical complications.

      METHODS

      Results were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio with associated 95% confidence intervals. The quality of studies was evaluated with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for judging risk of bias. Heterogeneity was measured using I-squared (Higgins I2).

      RESULTS

      This review included 7 randomized controlled trials, of which 3 compared multifilament with barbed suture (136 vs 136 participants), 3 compared multifilament with conventional monofilament suture (245 vs 244 participants), and 1 trial compared multifilament with chromic suture (4590 vs 4595 participants). Primary analysis showed no difference in estimated blood loss between the multifilament and the barbed suture group (mean difference, 46.2 mL; 95% confidence interval, −13.6 to 105.9), nor in change in hemoglobin concentration between the multifilament and the conventional monofilament group (mean difference, −0.1%; 95% confidence interval, −0.5 to 0.3). Secondary outcomes showed a reduction in operative time with barbed vs multifilament suture (mean difference, 1.9 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 0.03–3.8). Analysis also demonstrated an increased uterine scar thickness with use of conventional monofilament vs multifilament suture (mean difference, −1.05 mm; 95% confidence interval, −1.9 to −0.2).

      CONCLUSION

      This meta-analysis does not support a specific type of suture material for uterine closure at cesarean delivery because of insufficient data. Although barbed suture was associated with an overall decrease in operative time, and use of conventional monofilament suture was associated with an increase in uterine scar thickness, the clinical utility of these differences is not clear. Further adequate randomized controlled trials are warranted for evaluation of different suture materials for hysterotomy closure.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Antoine C
        • Young BK.
        Cesarean section one hundred years 1920-2020: the good, the bad and the ugly.
        J Perinat Med. 2020; 49: 5-16
        • Silver RM.
        Delivery after previous cesarean: long-term maternal outcomes.
        Semin Perinatol. 2010; 34: 258-266
        • Dodd JM
        • Anderson ER
        • Gates S
        • Grivell RM.
        Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 7CD004732
        • Clark SL
        • Koonings PP
        • Phelan JP.
        Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 66: 89-92
        • Abalos E
        • Addo V
        • et al.
        • CORONIS Collaborative Group
        Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2013; 382: 234-248
        • Bujold E
        • Bujold C
        • Hamilton EF
        • Harel F
        • Gauthier RJ.
        The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 1326-1330
        • Jardine JE
        • Law P
        • Hogg M
        • Murphy D
        • Khan KS
        C-SAFETY. Haemorrhage at caesarean section: a framework for prevention and research.
        Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 28: 492-498
        • Bahadur A
        • Khoiwal K
        • Bhattacharya N
        • Chaturvedi J
        • Kumari R.
        The effect of intrauterine misoprostol on blood loss during caesarean section.
        J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 39: 753-756
      1. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (Caesar).
        BJOG. 2010; 117: 1366-1376
        • Dahlke JD
        • Mendez-Figueroa H
        • Rouse DJ
        • Berghella V
        • Baxter JK
        • Chauhan SP.
        Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery: an updated systematic review.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 294-306
        • Bujold E
        • Goyet M
        • Marcoux S
        • et al.
        The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 43-50
        • Tanos V
        • Toney ZA.
        Uterine scar rupture - prediction, prevention, diagnosis, and management.
        Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 59: 115-131
        • Tekiner NB
        • Çetin BA
        • Türkgeldi LS
        • Yılmaz G
        • Polat İ
        • Gedikbaşı A.
        Evaluation of cesarean scar after single- and double-layer hysterotomy closure: a prospective cross-sectional study.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018; 297: 1137-1143
        • Agarwal S
        • D'Souza R
        • Ryu M
        • Maxwell C
        Barbed vs conventional suture at cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021; 100: 1010-1018
        • Moher D
        • Liberati A
        • Tetzlaff J
        • Altman DG
        • Group PRISMA
        Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 264-269
        • Başbuğ A
        • Doğan O
        • A Ellibeş Kaya
        • Ç Pulatoğlu
        • Çağlar M
        Does suture material affect uterine scar healing after cesarean section? Results from a randomized controlled trial.
        J Invest Surg. 2019; 32: 763-769
        • Saccone G
        • De Angelis MC
        • Zizolfi B
        • et al.
        Monofilament vs multifilament suture for uterine closure at the time of cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022; 4100592
        • Grin L
        • Namazov A
        • Ivshin A
        • et al.
        Barbed versus conventional suture for uterine repair during caesarean section: a randomized controlled study.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019; 41: 1571-1578
        • Zayed MA
        • Fouda UM
        • Elsetohy KA
        • Zayed SM
        • Hashem AT
        • Youssef MA.
        Barbed sutures versus conventional sutures for uterine closure at cesarean section; a randomized controlled trial.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019; 32: 710-717
        • Sevket O
        • Takmaz T
        • Ozcan P
        • Halici BNA
        • Islek SH.
        Hydrosonographic assessment of the effect of two different suture materials on healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
        Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2021; 225: 140-145
        • Peleg D
        • Ahmad RS
        • Warsof SL
        • Marcus-Braun N
        • Sciaky-Tamir Y
        • Ben Shachar I
        A randomized clinical trial of knotless barbed suture vs conventional suture for closure of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218 (343.e1–7)
        • Kolås T
        • Øian P
        • Skjeldestad FE.
        Risks for peroperative excessive blood loss in cesarean delivery.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010; 89: 658-663
        • Pergialiotis V
        • Mitsopoulou D
        • Biliou E
        • et al.
        Cephalad-caudad versus transverse blunt expansion of the low transverse hysterotomy during cesarean delivery decreases maternal morbidity: a meta-analysis.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 225 (128.e1–13)
        • Di Spiezio Sardo A
        • Saccone G
        • McCurdy R
        • Bujold E
        • Bifulco G
        • Berghella V.
        Risk of cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50: 578-583
        • Berghella V
        • Baxter JK
        • Chauhan SP.
        Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 1607-1617
        • Gardella B
        • Dominoni M
        • Iacobone AD
        • et al.
        What is the role of barbed suture in laparoscopic myomectomy? A meta-analysis and pregnancy outcome evaluation.
        Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2018; 83: 521-532
        • Tulandi T
        • Einarsson JI.
        The use of barbed suture for laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21: 210-216
        • Bogliolo S
        • Musacchi V
        • Dominoni M
        • et al.
        Barbed suture in minimally invasive hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 292: 489-497
        • Greenberg JA
        • Goldman RH.
        Barbed suture: a review of the technology and clinical uses in obstetrics and gynecology.
        Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 6: 107-115
        • Lin Y
        • Lai S
        • Huang J
        • Du L.
        The efficacy and safety of knotless barbed sutures in the surgical field: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
        Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 23425
        • Beckmann JH
        • Kersebaum JN
        • von Schönfels W
        • Becker T
        • Schafmayer C
        • Egberts JH.
        Use of barbed sutures in robotic bariatric bypass surgery: a single-center case series.
        BMC Surg. 2019; 19: 97
        • Swift BE
        • Shah PS
        • Farine D.
        Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness after prior cesarean section to predict uterine rupture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019; 98: 830-841
        • Roberge S
        • Demers S
        • Berghella V
        • Chaillet N
        • Moore L
        • Bujold E.
        Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211: 453-460