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: Barbed vs conventional sutures for cesarean uterine scar defects: a randomized clinical trial.
    Author: Maki J, Mitoma T, Ooba H, Nakato H, Mishima S, Tani K, Eto E, Yamamoto D, Yamamoto R, Kai K, Tamada T, Akamatsu K, Kawanishi K, Masuyama H.
    Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2024 Sep; 6(9):101431. PubMed ID: 39019212.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The role of barbed sutures in preventing myometrial defects and enhancing postpartum outcomes after cesarean section (C-section) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: This study compared clinical and ultrasonographic outcomes of uterine scar defects after C-section with barbed and conventional smooth thread sutures. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Four obstetrics and gynecology departments across three Japanese healthcare regions were included. The participants were women requiring their first cesarean delivery between May 2020 and March 2023. Of the 1211 participants enrolled, 298 underwent C-section and 253 were followed up until July 2023. Participants with singleton pregnancies were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either conventional or spiral thread sutures with a double-layer continuous suture. The study period comprised the time of consent to the 6- to 7-month examination. The primary endpoint was the rate of scar niches >2 mm evaluated using transvaginal ultrasonography at 6 to 7 months after surgery. Additional metrics included the total operative time, suture application time, operative blood loss, number of additional sutures required for hemostasis, maternal surgical complications, postoperative infections, surgeon's years of experience, and individual subscale scores. RESULTS: All data of the 220 participants (barbed suture group: 110; conventional suture group: 110) were available, thus enabling a full analysis set. A comparison of the barbed and conventional suture groups, respectively, revealed the following: niche length, 2.45±1.65 mm (range: 1.0-6.7) vs 3.79±1.84 mm (range: 1.0-11.0) (P<.001); niche depth, 1.78±1.07 mm (range: 1.0-5.7) vs 2.70±1.34 mm (range: 1.0-7.3) (P<.001); residual myometrial thickness (RMT), 8.46±1.74 mm (range: 4.8-13.0) vs 7.07±2.186 mm (range: 2.2-16.2) (P<.001); and niche width, 1.58±2.73 mm (range: 0.0-14.0) vs 2.88±2.36 mm (range: 0.0-11.0) (P<.001), respectively. The barbed suture group exhibited no defects and an RMT <3 mm. Furthermore, the barbed suture group had a lower rate of uterine niches (29.1%; n=32/110) than the conventional suture group (68.2%; n=75/110). Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in operative times, maternal surgical complications, or postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Double-layer barbed sutures during cesarean delivery may prevent C-section scar defects and postoperative complications. El resumen está disponible en Español al final del artículo.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]