Thread by @IUJ_BlueJournal

Dear IUJ readers, another Journal Club coming! This April we will discuss the study from Kowalski et al. entitled “A randomized controlled trial of permanent vs absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension”. 1/11 – this is a thread.

A randomized controlled trial of permanent vs absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension
J. T. Kowalski, R. Genadry, P. Ten Eyck & C. S. Bradley
Prepared by Glaucia Varella, PT, MsC - on behalf of IUJ Social Media Scholar Group
Int Urogynecol J 2021;32: 785–790. 2/11

Questions:
1-According to the authors, in the introduction section, permanent apical sutures can be considered as the “gold standard”. However, some advocate an absorbable suture. Discuss your preference between sutures in your clinical practice and why? 3/11

2-What is the hypothesis of the study and what does it add to the design of the clinical trial? 4/11

3- Discuss the difference between equivalence and non-inferiority designs. 5/11

4- Describe the method used in this article to generate the random allocation sequence and the type of randomization. Next, comment on what does the 1: 1 randomization sequence means? 6/11

5- The authors propose a postoperative follow-up of 6 weeks and 12 months after surgery. Discuss whether you agree with the follow-up period with regard to the purpose of the study. 7/11

6- Describe the uterosacral ligament suspension surgery. In your opinion, would the two differences in the techniques proposed by the authors result in a great difference in outcomes? Discuss whether you would proceed differently in your clinical practice. 8/11

7- Discuss the main findings of the article and whether or not it is applicable in your clinical practice. 9/11

8-Discuss the adverse events related to the intervention described by the authors, commenting on whether or not you would maintain the same treatment approach. 10/11

9- What is the conclusion of the study? 11/11