Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Using an Anchor Versus Suture-Capturing Device: A Prospective Cohort Study

Safety of an anchor-based device for sacrospinous ligament fixation: A pilot case-control study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) is a popular surgical technique for treating apical prolapse. The use of suture-capturing devices (SCD), or the more recently introduced anchor-based device (ABD), is useful for a posterior approach but essential for an anterior one. The aim of our study was to assess the safety of the ABD, which was recently introduced to our unit, compared to the traditionally used SCD.

METHODS

This was a pilot case-control study of 40 patients who had a SSLF, 20 of these represented all the patients who had the procedure with the aid of the ABD and 20 patients who had the procedure using the SCD over approximately the same duration. The main safety endpoints of this pilot study were patient reported postoperative pain scores and perioperative complications rate.

RESULTS

The population characteristics were similar. The mean postoperative pain scores differed significantly only on postoperative day 1 in favor of the suture capturing device (3.40 [2.60] vs 1.60 [1.64], p = 0.013). The mean highest pain score was similar in both groups. Peri-operative complications rates were low and comparable between both groups. According to POPQ at 6 weeks follow-up the median Ba point was higher in the ABD group and this difference was significant (-3.00 [-3.00; -2.25] vs. -2.00 [-3.00; -1.50]; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The anchor-based device for sacrospinal ligament fixation seems to have comparable safety profile to the traditionally used suture capturing devices.

Enabling Technologies for Gynecologic Vaginal Surgery: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature to evaluate clinical and surgical outcomes for technologies that facilitate vaginal surgical procedures.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1990 to May 2022.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Comparative and single-arm studies with data on contemporary tools or technologies facilitating intraoperative performance of vaginal gynecologic surgical procedures for benign indications were included. Citations were independently double screened, and eligible full-text articles were extracted by two reviewers. Data collected included study characteristics, technology, patient demographics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Risk of bias for comparative studies was assessed using established methods, and restricted maximum likelihood model meta-analyses were conducted as indicated.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The search yielded 8,658 abstracts, with 116 eligible studies that evaluated pedicle sealing devices (n=32), nonrobotic and robotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (n=64), suture capture devices (n=17), loop ligatures (n=2), and table-mounted telescopic cameras (n=1). Based on 19 comparative studies, pedicle sealing devices lowered vaginal hysterectomy operative time by 15.9 minutes (95% CI, -23.3 to -85), blood loss by 36.9 mL (95% CI, -56.9 to -17.0), hospital stay by 0.2 days (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.1), and visual analog scale pain scores by 1.4 points on a subjective 10-point scale (95% CI, -1.7 to -1.1). Three nonrandomized comparative studies and 53 single-arm studies supported the feasibility of nonrobotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for hysterectomy, adnexal surgery, pelvic reconstruction, and myomectomy. Data were limited for robotic vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, suture capture devices, loop ligatures, and table-mounted cameras due to few studies or study heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Pedicle sealing devices lower operative time and blood loss for vaginal hysterectomy, with modest reductions in hospital stay and pain scores. Although other technologies identified in the literature may have potential to facilitate vaginal surgical procedures and improve outcomes, additional comparative effectiveness research is needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42022327490.