These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of 2 methods of vaginal cuff closure during robotic hysterectomy.
    Author: Neubauer NL, Schink PJ, Pant A, Singh D, Lurain JR, Schink JC.
    Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2013 Jan; 120(1):99-101. PubMed ID: 23040405.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 methods of vaginal cuff closure with regard to safety, ease of use, and postoperative outcome. METHODS: All patients undergoing robotic-assisted total hysterectomy by a gynecologic oncologist from July 1, 2010, to July 1, 2011, at Northwestern Memorial Prentice Women's Hospital were included in a retrospective analysis. Providers used either 2-0 monofilament synthetic absorbable suture to close the vaginal cuff in a running fashion, secured with an absorbable suture clip at the angles and then knotted in the middle, or 2-0 absorbable unidirectional barbed suture with a welded-loop closure in a running fashion. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients underwent robotic-assisted total hysterectomy. The 2-0 tied monofilament closure was used in 58 patients, and the 2-0 barbed knotless closure was used in 76 patients. There were no instances of vaginal cuff dehiscence or vaginal cuff cellulitis. Rates of vaginal spotting and bleeding were comparable between the groups (12.0% spotting in the monofilament suture group vs 13.0% spotting in the barbed suture group). All vaginal cuff bleeding resolved on its own without significant intervention. CONCLUSION: The use of either a 2-0 welded-loop unidirectional barbed suture or a 2-0 monofilament absorbable suture to close the vaginal cuff is safe and well tolerated.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]