Maternal morbidity following caesarean deliveries with barbed suture for uterine closure

Barbed Sutures and Their Potential Role in Reducing Inflammatory Reaction After Cesarean Delivery: A Single-Center Experience

Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term outcomes of knotless barbed sutures used for both closures of myometrium and subcuticular tissues in patients with various operative indications and who underwent cesarean delivery (CD) in a single tertiary center. Materials and methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted, and the patients were divided into two groups. The barbed suture group consisted of patients who underwent CD using barbed sutures for uterine closure (0 Stratafix® Spiral PDS Plus, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) and subcuticular closure (4-0 Stratafix® Spiral PDS Plus). The non-barbed group consisted of patients who underwent CD using monofilament sutures for uterine closure (0-Monocryl®, Ethicon) and subcuticular closure (3-0 Opepolyx®, Alfresa, Tokyo, Japan). Results White blood cell count on post-operative day 1 was statistically lower in the barbed suture group (p=0.01), while there were no other significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Barbed sutures can be used without major complications in patients who have undergone CD, including high-risk pregnancies.

Barbed vs conventional suture at cesarean delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Barbed sutures are used in cesarean delivery with the intended benefits of better tissue approximation, hemostasis, and strength, as well as reduced operative time. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the safety and efficacy of the use of barbed suture compared with conventional sutures in cesarean delivery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and three clinical trial registries, were searched from inception to December 2019, without restriction by language or publication year. Randomized controlled trials comparing the use of barbed suture with conventional sutures in closure of any layer (uterine/fascial/skin) during cesarean delivery were included. The safety outcomes included estimated blood loss, pain, mortality, and other morbidity including infection, re-operation or re-admission. Effectiveness outcomes included closure time, need for additional suture and scar integrity. Study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias, and quality assessment were independently performed by two authors. Primary analysis compared outcomes for all layers of surgical closure, whereas subgroup analysis was performed by individual layer. Pooled mean differences (MD) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were calculated using a random effects model. Level of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020168859.

RESULTS

The review included four trials (three comparing uterine closure and one comparing skin closure), at high risk of bias, representing 460 participants. Primary analysis showed no morbidity differences between two groups. The use of barbed suture for uterine closure was associated with shorter incision closure time (MD 110.58 seconds, 95% CI 93.79-127.36 seconds), shorter total surgical time (MD 1.92 minutes, 95% CI 0.03-3.80 minutes), and a reduced need for additional hemostatic sutures (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28-0.54), with no difference in estimated blood loss (MD 46.17 mL, 95% CI 13.55 to -105.89 mL) or postoperative morbidity (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.46-2.01). The level of evidence was deemed to be low to very low, based on inconsistency and imprecision of results.

CONCLUSIONS

Barbed sutures may be a suitable alternative to conventional sutures for uterine closure because they reduce uterine repair time, total surgical time, and the need for additional hemostatic sutures, without an increase in blood loss or maternal morbidity.