20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and safety of V-Loc barbed sutures versus conventional suture techniques in gynecological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          One of the most challenging tasks in laparoscopic gynecological surgeries is suturing. Knotless barbed sutures are intended to enable faster suturing and hemostasis. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of V-Loc barbed sutures (VBS) with conventional sutures (CS) in gynecological surgeries.

          Methods

          We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies published between 2010 and September 2021 comparing VBS to CS for OB/GYN procedures. All comparative studies were included. Primary analysis and subgroup analyses for the different surgery and suturing types were performed. Primary outcomes were operation time and suture time; secondary outcomes included post-operative complications, surgical site infections, estimated blood loss, length of stay, granulation tissue formation, and surgical difficulty. Results were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with a random effects model, and a sensitivity analysis for study quality, study size, and outlier results was performed. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022363187.

          Results

          In total, 25 studies involving 4452 women undergoing hysterectomy, myomectomy, or excision of endometrioma. VBS were associated with a reduction in operation time (WMD – 17.08 min; 95% CI – 21.57, – 12.59), suture time (WMD – 5.39 min; 95% CI – 7.06, – 3.71), surgical site infection (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.09, 0.78), estimated blood loss (WMD – 44.91 ml; 95% CI – 66.01, – 23.81), granulation tissue formation (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25, 0.89), and surgical difficulty (WMD – 1.98 VAS score; 95% CI – 2.83, – 1.13). No difference between VBS and CS was found regarding total postoperative complications or length of stay. Many of the outcomes showed high heterogeneity, likely due to the inclusion of different surgery types and comparators. Most results were shown to be robust in the sensitivity analysis except for the reduction in granulation tissue formation.

          Conclusion

          This meta-analysis indicates that V-Loc barbed sutures are safe and effective in gynecological surgeries as they reduce operation time, suture time, blood loss, infections, and surgical difficulty without increasing post-operative complications or length of stay compared to conventional sutures.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-023-07291-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range

            Background In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials. Methods In this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.’s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials. Results We demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications. Conclusions In this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ourpublications@coreva-scientific.com
                Journal
                Arch Gynecol Obstet
                Arch Gynecol Obstet
                Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0932-0067
                1432-0711
                21 December 2023
                21 December 2023
                2024
                : 309
                : 4
                : 1249-1265
                Affiliations
                Coreva Scientific GmbH & Co KG, Im Muehlenbruch 1, 53639 Koenigswinter, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0009-0004-4595-7794
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6922-6599
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1463-4656
                Article
                7291
                10.1007/s00404-023-07291-3
                10894094
                38127141
                d458732b-86a7-43ea-b9d8-31934f3bded4
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 11 July 2023
                : 6 November 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004374, Medtronic;
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                v-loc,barbed suture,hysterectomy,myomectomy,meta-analysis
                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                v-loc, barbed suture, hysterectomy, myomectomy, meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                9
                0
                1
                0
                Smart Citations
                9
                0
                1
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content552

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors1,055