Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 1, 2026
Application of Straight-needle, Three-tailed, Knot-free, Peritoneal Sutures in Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Hernia Repair
Published on: November 12, 2021
Systematic review on the needle and suture types for uterine compression sutures: a literature review
Shinya Matsuzaki1, Mariko Jitsumori2, Takeya Hara2
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. zacky@gyne.med.osaka-u.ac.jp.
Background:
This study aimed to identify and review associations between the types of sutures used for uterine compression suture (UCS) and its outcomes in postpartum hemorrhage.
Methods:
An electronic search using PubMed and Scopus databases was performed. We included the English articles reported from January 1, 1997, to May 31, 2017, using search words or terms regarding the types of suture and needle used for UCSs. We only included studies describing the sutures in the systematic review.
Results:
We found 196 studies and included 76 (38.8%) in our analysis. We collected data on maternal outcomes for 924 patients and categorized them. Of the 76 studies, suture sizes 0, 1, and 2 were used in 6, 44, and 32 articles, respectively (some studies used multiple sutures). Of the 45 studies mentioning the needles, curved and straight needles were used in 35 and 10, respectively. The results of our review revealed that about 80% of previous articles used Catgut and Polyglactin 910 sutures. Because no studies that compared the efficacy of different size of sutures were identified, we investigated the differences using the cases reported in previous studies mentioned above. In the first analysis, we compared the uterine preservation rate between size 1 and size 2 sutures. We found no significant difference in uterine preservation rate (92.8%: size 1 vs. 94.2%: size 2, p > 0.05) but found significant difference in transfusion rate (62.4% vs. 79.1%, p < 0.01). With the hypothesis that non-transfusion cases were less severe, we excluded these cases from second analysis. Although our second analysis of only Catgut or Polyglactin showed strong selection bias, we observed that uterine preservation rate was significantly higher in cases with size 2 suture than in those with size 1 suture (86.9% vs. 93.5%, p = 0.033).
Conclusions:
Our systematic review showed that approximately 80% of cases were treated by Catgut and Polyglactin 910. Due to the heterogeneity of cases included in this review, it is difficult to estimate which suture is better for UCSs. More robust studies are necessary to enable the identification of the superior suture for performing UCSs.
