Permanent or absorbable suture material for sacrospinous ligament fixation: Does it matter?

Anna Padoa*, Yuval Ziv, Anna Tsviban, Roni Tomashev, Noam Smorgick, Tal Fligelman

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objective: To evaluate success and safety of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) using permanent versus absorbable suture materials 12 months following surgery. Study Design: Following IRB approval, the electronic medical records of women who underwent SSLF in the gynecology department of a university-affiliated medical center from November 2012 to September 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. SSLF was carried out using Capio® and Digitex™, with either absorbable (polyglactin-910 or polydioxanone) sutures (group 1), or permanent (polypropylene) sutures (group 2), Pre-operative and post-operative assessment included prolapse staging using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system and validated quality of life questionnaires (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12). Patients with postoperative information on objective and subjective outcome at 12 months were included in final analysis. Anatomical success was defined as POP stage < 2 at 12-months following surgery. For statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney test was used for continuous variables, Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables, and Chi-squared test of independence for variables with>2 categories. Results: During the study period, 234 women underwent SSLF. One-hundred and forty-two patients (60.7 %) returned at the 12-month follow-up and were included in final analysis. Seventy-two (50.7 %) patients had absorbable suture and 70 patients (49.3 %) had permanent suture. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in group 1 [100 (50–150) cc vs 50 (50–100) cc respectively, p =.016]. Moderate to severe pain on POD-1 was significantly higher in group 2 [VAS: 2.00 (0.00–4.00) vs 4.00 (3.00–5.75) respectively, p =.001]. Anatomical success, defined as POP ≤ stage 2 at 12 months, was similar between groups: 69 % in group 1 vs 67 % in group 2 (p =.77). Subjective cure was similar between groups, 97.2 % in group 1 vs 94.3 % in group 2 (p =.44). At the 12-month follow-up, none of the patients had gluteal pain. The rate of de-novo dyspareunia was similar between groups: 4 women (5.9 %) in the absorbable suture group versus 2 women (3.3 %) in the permanent suture group (p =.49). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that absorbable or permanent suture material does not affect outcome of SSLF. Permanent sutures may be related to increased immediate postoperative pain.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)112-117
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
StatePublished - Apr 2023


  • Anatomical success
  • Complications
  • Pelvic organ prolapse
  • Sacrospinous ligament fixation
  • Suture material


Dive into the research topics of 'Permanent or absorbable suture material for sacrospinous ligament fixation: Does it matter?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this