Long-term outcomes for different vaginal cuff closure techniques in robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomized controlled trial

Efficacy and safety of V-Loc™ barbed sutures versus conventional suture techniques in gynecological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

One of the most challenging tasks in laparoscopic gynecological surgeries is suturing. Knotless barbed sutures are intended to enable faster suturing and hemostasis. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of V-Loc™ barbed sutures (VBS) with conventional sutures (CS) in gynecological surgeries.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies published between 2010 and September 2021 comparing VBS to CS for OB/GYN procedures. All comparative studies were included. Primary analysis and subgroup analyses for the different surgery and suturing types were performed. Primary outcomes were operation time and suture time; secondary outcomes included post-operative complications, surgical site infections, estimated blood loss, length of stay, granulation tissue formation, and surgical difficulty. Results were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with a random effects model, and a sensitivity analysis for study quality, study size, and outlier results was performed. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022363187.

RESULTS

In total, 25 studies involving 4452 women undergoing hysterectomy, myomectomy, or excision of endometrioma. VBS were associated with a reduction in operation time (WMD - 17.08 min; 95% CI - 21.57, - 12.59), suture time (WMD - 5.39 min; 95% CI - 7.06, - 3.71), surgical site infection (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.09, 0.78), estimated blood loss (WMD - 44.91 ml; 95% CI - 66.01, - 23.81), granulation tissue formation (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25, 0.89), and surgical difficulty (WMD - 1.98 VAS score; 95% CI - 2.83, - 1.13). No difference between VBS and CS was found regarding total postoperative complications or length of stay. Many of the outcomes showed high heterogeneity, likely due to the inclusion of different surgery types and comparators. Most results were shown to be robust in the sensitivity analysis except for the reduction in granulation tissue formation.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates that V-Loc™ barbed sutures are safe and effective in gynecological surgeries as they reduce operation time, suture time, blood loss, infections, and surgical difficulty without increasing post-operative complications or length of stay compared to conventional sutures.

Comparison of different suture techniques for laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure

Laparoscopic hysterectomy is a commonly performed procedure. However, one high-risk complication is vaginal cuff dehiscence. Currently, there is no standardization regarding thread material or suturing technique for vaginal cuff closure. Therefore, this study aimed to compare extracorporeal and intracorporeal suturing techniques for vaginal cuff closure using a pelvic trainer model. Eighteen experts in laparoscopic surgery performed vaginal cuff closures with interrupted sutures using intracorporeal knotting, extracorporeal knotting and continuous, unidirectional barbed sutures. While using an artificial tissue suturing pad in a pelvic trainer, experts performed vaginal cuff closure using each technique according to block randomization. Task completion time, tension resistance, and the number of errors were recorded. After completing the exercises, participants answered a questionnaire concerning the suturing techniques and their performance. Experts completed suturing more quickly (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively) and with improved tension resistance (p < 0.001, p < 0.001) when using barbed suturing compared to intracorporeal and extracorporeal knotting. Furthermore, the intracorporeal knotting technique was performed faster (p = 0.04) and achieved greater tension resistance (p = 0.023) compared to extracorporeal knotting. The number of laparoscopic surgeries performed per year was positively correlated with vaginal cuff closure duration (p = 0.007). Barbed suturing was a time-saving technique with improved tension resistance for vaginal cuff closure.

Prevention and management of vaginal cuff dehiscence: an updated review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Minimally invasive hysterectomy has gained popularity because of its many benefits. However, laparoscopic and robotic assisted hysterectomy have been associated with increased risk of vaginal cuff dehiscence. This review is meant to address risk management and prevention of vaginal cuff dehiscence in patients undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent findings in the literature focus on addressing modifiable risk factors in patients and on using good surgical technique to help minimize the risk of vaginal cuff dehiscence.

SUMMARY

The focus of this review is to help surgeons identify patient risk factors and address them preoperatively and to review surgical techniques that can minimize the risk of vaginal cuff dehiscence.

The effects of different instruments and suture methods of conization for cervical lesions

This study is to compare the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing cold knife conization (CKC) versus electrosurgical conization (ESC). Among 10,086 patients in a single center admitted between January 2000 and January 2019, CKS or ESC was used for grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) or more severe lesions. Modified Sturmdorf or Figure-of-eight sutures were applied after conization. A regression model was used to determine the risk factors for margin involvement and short-term post-operative complications. In total, 7275 (72.1%) and 2811 (27.9%) patients underwent CKC and ESC, respectively. Women who underwent ESC were older and had a higher risk of margin involvement and endocervical glandular involvement than those who underwent CKC in univariate analysis. However, in the multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.032, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.025–1.038) and glandular involvement (OR 2.196, 95% CI 1.915–2.517) were the independent risk factors associated with margin involvement, but the incision methods used caused no significant difference. Modified Sturmdorf sutures and Figure-of-eight sutures were applied in 3520 (34.9%) and 6566 (65.1%) patients, respectively. The modified Sturmdorf sutures was the only risk factor associated with wound hemorrhage (OR 1.852, 95% CI 1.111–3.085) after adjusted with other epidemiological and surgical factors. Various incision or suture methods had similar risk of cervical stenosis. Therefore, ESC is an acceptable alternative to CKC for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical lesions regarding the pathologic accuracy and integrity, and short-term safety. Modified Sturmdorf sutures increased the risk of wound hemorrhage compared with Figure-of-eight sutures.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

BACKGROUND

This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.

Vaginal Cuff Closure in Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: A Review of Training, Techniques, and Materials

Hysterectomy is one of the most common surgeries performed each year and can be indicated for many gynecologic conditions. The development of minimally invasive surgery has transformed this procedure, resulting in improved outcomes, superior cosmesis, and quicker return to normal function. Vaginal cuff closure is a critical component of hysterectomy, with many variations in surgical technique and materials. This review provides an overview of intracorporeal suturing and knot-tying techniques at the level of a junior resident in obstetrics and gynecology and describes several validated models that have been developed to test resident skill level in vaginal cuff closure. We also provide a review of the literature regarding vaginal cuff closure techniques and suture materials, including knotless barbed sutures. Finally, a brief discussion of single-site surgery, the latest development in minimally invasive hysterectomy, will be provided. We hope to provide a better understanding of vaginal cuff closure for residents in the field of obstetrics and gynecology.