International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 1357–1365 | Cite as

Does the choice of suture material matter in anterior and posterior colporrhaphy?

  • Ida BergmanEmail author
  • Marie Westergren Söderberg
  • Anders Kjaeldgaard
  • Marion Ek
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

The optimal suture material in traditional prolapse surgery is still controversial. Our aim was to investigate the effect of using sutures with rapid (RA) or slow (SA) absorption, on symptomatic recurrence after anterior and posterior colporrhaphy.


A population-based longitudinal cohort study with data from the Swedish National Quality Register for Gynecological Surgery. A total of 1,107 women who underwent primary anterior colporrhaphy and 577 women who underwent primary posterior colporrhaphy between September 2012 and September 2013 were included. Two groups in each cohort were created based on which suture material was used. Pre- and postoperative prolapse-related symptoms and patient satisfaction were assessed.


We found a significantly lower rate of symptomatic recurrence 1 year after anterior colporrhaphy in the SA suture group compared with the RA suture group, 50 out of 230 (22 %) vs 152 out of 501 (30 %), odds ratio 1.6 (CI 1.1–2.3; p = 0.01). The SA group also had a significantly higher patient satisfaction rate, 83 % vs 75 %, odds ratio 1.6 (CI 1.04–2.4), (p = 0.03). Urgency improved significantly more in the RA suture group (p < 0.001). In the posterior colporrhaphy cohort there was no significant difference between the suture materials.


This study indicates that the use of slowly absorbable sutures decreases the odds of having a symptomatic recurrence after an anterior colporrhaphy compared with the use of rapidly absorbable sutures. However, the use of RA sutures may result in less urgency 1 year postoperatively. In posterior colporrhaphy the choice of suture material does not affect postoperative symptoms.


Anterior colporrhaphy Pelvic organ prolapse Posterior colporrhaphy Recurrence Suture material 



The authors thank Lina Benson at the Department of Clinical Science and Education at Södersjukhuset for support with the statistical analyses. The database was kindly provided by the Swedish National Quality Register of Gynecologic Surgery.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Weber AM, Richter HE (2005) Pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 106(3):615–634. doi: 10.1097/ CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:Cd004014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185(6):1299–1304. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.119081, discussion 1304–1296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Morlin B, Hammarstrom M (2008) A 5-year prospective follow-up study of vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(12):1593–1601. doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0702-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(1):10–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allahdin S, Glazener C, Bain C (2008) A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of polyglactin mesh, polydioxanone and polyglactin sutures for pelvic organ prolapse surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol 28(4):427–431. doi: 10.1080/01443610802150077 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madhuvrata P, Glazener C, Boachie C, Allahdin S, Bain C (2011) A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of polyglactin (Vicryl) mesh, polydioxanone (PDS) or polyglactin (Vicryl) sutures for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: outcomes at 2 years. J Obstet Gynaecol 31(5):429–435. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2011.576282 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maxson S, Lopez EA, Yoo D, Danilkovitch-Miagkova A, Leroux MA (2012) Concise review: role of mesenchymal stem cells in wound repair. Stem Cells Transl Med 1(2):142–149. doi: 10.5966/sctm.2011-0018 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rath AM, Chevrel JP (1998) The healing of laparotomies: review of the literature. Hernia 2(3):145–149. doi: 10.1007/BF01250034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van ’t Riet M, Steyerberg EW, Nellensteyn J, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J (2002) Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions. Br J Surg 89(11):1350–1356. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02258.x
  11. 11.
    Chu CC, Williams DF (1984) Effects of physical configuration and chemical structure of suture materials on bacterial adhesion. A possible link to wound infection. Am J Surg 147(2):197–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katz S, Izhar M, Mirelman D (1981) Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures. A possible factor in suture induced infection. Ann Surg 194(1):35–41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, Spino C (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):600–609. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Digesu GA, Salvatore S, Chaliha C, Athanasiou S, Milani R, Khullar V (2007) Do overactive bladder symptoms improve after repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(12):1439–1443. doi: 10.1007/s00192-007-0375-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ellerkmann RM, Cundiff GW, Melick CF, Nihira MA, Leffler K, Bent AE (2001) Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185(6):1332–1337. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.119078, discussion 1337–1338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karram M, Maher C (2013) Surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 24(11):1835–1841. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2174-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L (1999) Outcome after rectovaginal fascia reattachment for rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181(6):1360–1363, discussion 1363–1364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Ballard LA, Booher DL, Piedmonte MR (1998) Posterior vaginal prolapse and bowel function. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179(6 Pt 1):1446–1449, discussion 1449–1450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klingele CJ, Bharucha AE, Fletcher JG, Gebhart JB, Riederer SG, Zinsmeister AR (2005) Pelvic organ prolapse in defecatory disorders. Obstet Gynecol 106(2):315–320. doi: 10.1097/01.aog.0000171104.72972.34 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gustilo-Ashby AM, Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD, Barber MD (2007) Bowel symptoms 1 year after surgery for prolapse: further analysis of a randomized trial of rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(1):76.e1–76.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.02.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG, Addison WA, Bump RC (1998) An anatomic and functional assessment of the discrete defect rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179(6 Pt 1):1451–1456, discussion 1456–1457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Draugalis JR, Coons SJ, Plaza CM (2008) Best practices for survey research reports: a synopsis for authors and reviewers. Am J Pharm Educ 72(1):11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet and the Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology at SödersjukhusetStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Clinical SciencesKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations