Objectives: In this study, we assessed the difference in anatomical outcomes using the barbed, self-anchoring, delayed absorbable suture when compared with the traditional knot-tying interrupted suture technique during vaginal mesh attachment in robotic sacrocolpopexy. In addition, we compared the rates of mesh erosion with the 2 techniques.
Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 131 women who underwent minimally invasive robotic sacrocolpopexy at 2 sites. There were 65 subjects at site 1 (barbed, self-anchoring, delayed absorbable suture) and 66 from site 2 (traditional knot-tying technique). The primary outcome was anatomical success (measured by all Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System points <0 postsurgery) in the barbed suture technique at site 1 compared with the traditional knot-tying technique at site 2. The secondary outcome was mesh erosion rates at these sites.
Results: In the barbed suture group, performed at site 1, 98% (n = 59/60) had postoperative success at the 3-month follow-up period compared with 62% (n = 40/65) in the traditional knot-tying group at site 2 during the 12-month postoperative follow-up (P < 0.0001). During this time period, 2% (n = 1) in the barbed suture group and 8% (n = 5) in the traditional knot-tying group experienced sacrocolpopexy mesh erosion (P = 0.208).
Conclusions: Our results indicate that the barbed, self-anchoring, delayed absorbable suture is associated with less anatomical failures compared with traditional knot tying. The use of barbed suture is a safe technique and can be adopted in place of the traditional knot-tying technique. We also found less mesh erosion in the barbed suture group.