New dedicated blunt straight needles and sutures for uterine compression sutures: a retrospective study and literature review.
B-Lynch
Blunt
Hayman suture
Needle
Uterine compression suture
Journal
BMC surgery
ISSN: 1471-2482
Titre abrégé: BMC Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968567
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Mar 2019
11 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
20
11
2018
accepted:
01
03
2019
entrez:
15
3
2019
pubmed:
15
3
2019
medline:
9
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We developed a dedicated blunt straight needle with No. 2 polydioxanone sutures (2-Monodiox®) for uterine compression sutures (UCSs) and aimed to assess the outcomes and complication rates of UCSs for postpartum hemorrhage by comparing with commercially available needle and suture types. A retrospective analysis was performed between January 2010 and February 2018. During the study period, two types of commercially available sutures and 2-Monodiox® were used. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases were searched for English articles published between January 1997 and May 2017 using search terms related to the suture and needle types for UCSs to discuss the dedicated needles and sutures for UCS. The analysis included 47 cases of UCSs for the uterine body with three suture types (No. 0 polydioxanone, 7 cases; No. 1 poliglecaprone 25, 21 cases; and No. 2 polydioxanone, 19 cases). B-Lynch suture using No. 0 sutures was associated with a significantly lower uterine preservation rate than those with Nos. 1 and 2 sutures (42.9% vs. 95.2 and 89.5%, respectively; p < 0.01). A modified Hayman suture technique was performed using 2-Monodiox® sutures, which achieved a similar uterine preservation rate compared with B-Lynch suture using No. 1 poliglecaprone 25 sutures. No patients developed severe complications. The literature review showed that no dedicated sutures have developed for UCSs. Three dedicated needles for UCSs have been developed, and 2-Monodiox® is the first dedicated blunt straight needle for UCSs. Our data showed that No. 0 sutures should not be used for B-Lynch suture. The uterine preservation rate is similar for 2-Monodiox® with modified Hayman suture and No. 1 poliglecaprone 25 sutures with B-Lynch suture, without the occurrence of severe complications.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We developed a dedicated blunt straight needle with No. 2 polydioxanone sutures (2-Monodiox®) for uterine compression sutures (UCSs) and aimed to assess the outcomes and complication rates of UCSs for postpartum hemorrhage by comparing with commercially available needle and suture types.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective analysis was performed between January 2010 and February 2018. During the study period, two types of commercially available sutures and 2-Monodiox® were used. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases were searched for English articles published between January 1997 and May 2017 using search terms related to the suture and needle types for UCSs to discuss the dedicated needles and sutures for UCS.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The analysis included 47 cases of UCSs for the uterine body with three suture types (No. 0 polydioxanone, 7 cases; No. 1 poliglecaprone 25, 21 cases; and No. 2 polydioxanone, 19 cases). B-Lynch suture using No. 0 sutures was associated with a significantly lower uterine preservation rate than those with Nos. 1 and 2 sutures (42.9% vs. 95.2 and 89.5%, respectively; p < 0.01). A modified Hayman suture technique was performed using 2-Monodiox® sutures, which achieved a similar uterine preservation rate compared with B-Lynch suture using No. 1 poliglecaprone 25 sutures. No patients developed severe complications. The literature review showed that no dedicated sutures have developed for UCSs. Three dedicated needles for UCSs have been developed, and 2-Monodiox® is the first dedicated blunt straight needle for UCSs.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our data showed that No. 0 sutures should not be used for B-Lynch suture. The uterine preservation rate is similar for 2-Monodiox® with modified Hayman suture and No. 1 poliglecaprone 25 sutures with B-Lynch suture, without the occurrence of severe complications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30866898
doi: 10.1186/s12893-019-0495-7
pii: 10.1186/s12893-019-0495-7
pmc: PMC6417176
doi:
Substances chimiques
Polydioxanone
31621-87-1
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
33Subventions
Organisme : Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan
ID : 17K11278
Références
Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Jul;96(1):129-131
pubmed: 10928901
Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Mar;99(3):502-6
pubmed: 11864681
Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2005 Jul-Aug;50(4):148-63
pubmed: 16405100
BJOG. 2006 Nov;113(11):1341; author reply 1342
pubmed: 17059399
World J Emerg Surg. 2009 Nov 25;4:43
pubmed: 19939251
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012 Jan;91(1):147-51
pubmed: 21501126
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;50(2):179-81
pubmed: 21791304
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013 Apr;92(4):378-85
pubmed: 23330882
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Feb;53(1):94-7
pubmed: 23405999
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013 Aug;92(8):988-9
pubmed: 23550567
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014 Feb;40(2):387-91
pubmed: 24118407
J Med Assoc Thai. 2013 Nov;96(11):1408-15
pubmed: 24428089
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jun;54(3):283-6
pubmed: 24506478
BJOG. 2015 Feb;122(3):429-33
pubmed: 25175111
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Nov;127(2):180-2
pubmed: 25277790
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Feb;291(2):305-10
pubmed: 25288270
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2015;80(4):228-33
pubmed: 25766082
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015 Jun;41(6):993-4
pubmed: 25873279
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2015;42(2):202-7
pubmed: 26054120
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;55(2):193-7
pubmed: 27125401
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2016;43(3):434-6
pubmed: 27328508
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016 Nov;42(11):1627-1628
pubmed: 27527990
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Aug 27;16:251
pubmed: 27567670
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Apr;137(1):1-7
pubmed: 28099749
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 May 31;17(1):160
pubmed: 28569213
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Oct;139(1):28-33
pubmed: 28661579
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct;130(4):e168-e186
pubmed: 28937571
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Jan;299(1):113-121
pubmed: 30357496
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 Mar;104(3):372-5
pubmed: 9091019