Barbed Versus Conventional Suture for Uterine Repair During Caesarean Section: A Randomized Controlled Study

Leonti Grin, Ahmet Namazov, Ale Ivshin, Mark Rabinovich, Victoria Shochat, Simon Shenhav, Ofer Gemer, Efraim Zohav, Eyal Y. Anteby

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations


Objective: This study sought to compare the short-term outcome of uterine incision repair during a Caesarean section (CS) using a bidirectional knotless barbed suture versus polyglactin suture. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at a university hospital. Participants undergoing a CS were randomly assigned to uterine incision closure by bidirectional knotless barbed suture (group A) or polyglactin (group B). The primary outcome was the time needed to repair the uterine incision. The analysis was by intent to treat. A sample size of 35 per group (n = 70) was planned to detect a 30% reduction in uterine repair time (Canadian Task Force Classification I). Results: From July 2016 through October 2017, 150 women were screened, and 70 were statistically analyzed: group A (n = 35) and group B (n = 35). Time to complete uterine incision repair was 308 ± 57 seconds for group A and 411 ± 74 seconds for group B (P < 0.001). Total surgery time (33.4 ± 8.8 minutes vs. 33.2 ± 7.5 minutes; P = 0.64) was not significantly different between groups A and B, respectively. Conclusion: Repair of the CS uterine incision with barbed suture compared with polyglactin suture reduces suturing time.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1571-1578
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada
Issue number11
StatePublished - 1 Nov 2019


  • C-section
  • Caesarean section
  • Caesarean section blood loss
  • barbed suture
  • postpartum hematoma
  • uterine repair

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology


Dive into the research topics of 'Barbed Versus Conventional Suture for Uterine Repair During Caesarean Section: A Randomized Controlled Study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this