Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-06-2016 | Original Article

Mobility and stress analysis of different surgical simulations during a sacral colpopexy, using a finite element model of the pelvic system

Authors: Estelle Jeanditgautier, Olivier Mayeur, Mathias Brieu, Gery Lamblin, Chrystele Rubod, Michel Cosson

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 6/2016

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We aim to analyze the combined influence of the size of the mesh, the number of sutures, the combined use of an anterior and posterior mesh, and the tension applied to the promontory, on the mobility of the pelvic organs and on the sutures, using a Finite Element (FE) model of the female pelvic system during abdominal sacral colpopexy.

Methods

We used a FE model of the female pelvic system, which allowed us to simulate the mobility of the pelvic system and to evaluate problems related to female prolapse. The meshes were added to the geometrical model and then transferred to computing software. This analysis allowed us to compare the stress and mobility during a thrust effort in different situations.

Results

The bigger the mesh, the less mobility of both anterior and posterior organs there would be. This is accompanied by an increase in stress at the suture level. The combination of a posterior mesh with an anterior one decreases mobility and stress at the suture level. There is a particularly relevant stressing zone on the suture at the cervix. The increase in the number of sutures induces a decrease in the tension applied at each suture zone and has no impact on organ mobility.

Conclusion

Our model enables us to simulate and analyze an infinite number of surgical hypotheses. Even if these results are not validated at a clinical level, we can observe the importance of the association of both an anterior and a posterior mesh or the number of sutures.

Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ (2004) Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190(1):20–26CrossRefPubMed

Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM et al (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):805–823CrossRefPubMed

Cosson M, Rubod C, Vallet A, Witz JF, Dubois P, Brieu M (2013) Simulation of normal pelvic mobilities in building an MRI-validated biomechanical model. Int Urogynecol J 24(1):105–112CrossRefPubMed

Cosson M, Rubod C, Vallet A, Witz J-F, Brieu M (2011) Biomechanical modeling of pelvic organ mobility: towards personalized medicine. Bull Acad Natl Med 195(8):1869–1883; discussion 1883PubMed

Mayeur O, Witz J-F, Lecomte P, Brieu M, Cosson M, Miller K (2015) Influence of geometry and mechanical properties on the accuracy of patient-specific simulation of women pelvic floor. Ann Biomed Eng doi:10.1007/s10439-015-1401-9 PubMed

Rubod C, Lecomte-Grosbras P, Brieu M, Giraudet G, Betrouni N, Cosson M (2013) 3D simulation of pelvic system numerical simulation for a better understanding of the contribution of the uterine ligaments. Int Urogynecol J 24(12):2093–2098CrossRef

Petros PEP, Woodman PJ (2008) The integral theory of continence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(1):35–40CrossRefPubMed

DeLancey JO (1992) Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166(6 Pt 1):1717–1724; discussion 1724–1728CrossRefPubMed

Rubod C, Boukerrou M, Brieu M, Jean-Charles C, Dubois P, Cosson M (2008) Biomechanical properties of vaginal tissue: preliminary results. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(6):811–816

10.

Shepherd JP, Feola AJ, Abramowitch SD, Moalli PA (2012) Uniaxial biomechanical properties of seven different vaginally implanted meshes for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(5):613–620CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Liang R, Abramowitch S, Knight K, Palcsey S, Nolfi A, Feola A et al (2013) Vaginal degeneration following implantation of synthetic mesh with increased stiffness. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 120(2):233–243CrossRef

12.

Feola A, Abramowitch S, Jallah Z, Stein S, Barone W, Palcsey S et al (2013) Deterioration in biomechanical properties of the vagina following implantation of a high-stiffness prolapse mesh. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 120(2):224–232CrossRef

13.

Kamina P (2008) Anatomie clinique, vol 4. Organes urinaires et génitaux, pelvis, coupes du tronc. Maloine, Paris

14.

Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Nezhat C (1994) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 84(5):885–888PubMed

15.

Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004014PubMed

16.

Bensinger G, Lind L, Lesser M, Guess M, Winkler HA (2005) Abdominal sacral suspensions: analysis of complications using permanent mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193(6):2094–2098CrossRefPubMed

17.

Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, Zyczynski HM, Nager CW, Norton PA et al (2008) Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(6):688.e1–688.e5CrossRef

18.

Govier FE, Kobashi KC, Kozlowski PM, Kuznetsov DD, Begley SJ, McGonigle KF et al (2005) High complication rate identified in sacrocolpopexy patients attributed to silicone mesh. Urology 65(6):1099–1103CrossRefPubMed

19.

Quiroz LH, Gutman RE, Shippey S, Cundiff GW, Sanses T, Blomquist JL et al (2008) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: anatomic outcomes and complications with Pelvicol, autologous and synthetic graft materials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(5):557.e1–557.e5CrossRef

20.

Manodoro S, Endo M, Uvin P, Albersen M, Vláčil J, Engels A et al (2013) Graft-related complications and biaxial tensiometry following experimental vaginal implantation of flat mesh of variable dimensions. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 120(2):244–250CrossRef

21.

Gadonneix P, Ercoli A, Salet-Lizée D, Cotelle O, Bolner B, Van Den Akker M et al (2004) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with two separate meshes along the anterior and posterior vaginal walls for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(1):29–35CrossRefPubMed

22.

Feiner B, Maher C (2010) Vaginal mesh contraction: definition, clinical presentation, and management. Obstet Gynecol 115(2, Part 1):325–330CrossRefPubMed

23.

Wattiez A, Canis M, Mage G, Pouly JL, Bruhat MA (2001) Promontofixation for the treatment of prolapse. Urol Clin N Am 28(1):151–157CrossRef

24.

Antiphon P, Elard S, Benyoussef A, Fofana M, Yiou R, Gettman M et al (2004) Laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy: is the posterior, recto-vaginal, mesh mandatory? Eur Urol 45(5):655–661CrossRefPubMed

25.

Barone WR, Amini R, Maiti S, Moalli PA, Abramowitch SD (2015) The impact of boundary conditions on surface curvature of polypropylene mesh in response to uniaxial loading. J Biomech 48(9):1566–1574CrossRefPubMed

26.

Boukerrou M, Orazi G, Nayama M, Boodhun R, Crépin G, Cosson M (2003) Promontofixation procedure: use of non-absorbable sutures or tackers? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 32(6):524–528

27.

Cosson M, Narducci F, Querleu D, Crépin G (2001) Experimental use of laparoscopic material: report of a case of spondylodiscitis after laparoscopic sacropexy with Taker. Ann Chir 126(6):554–556CrossRefPubMed

Title: Mobility and stress analysis of different surgical simulations during a sacral colpopexy, using a finite element model of the pelvic system
Authors: Estelle Jeanditgautier
Olivier Mayeur
Mathias Brieu
Gery Lamblin
Chrystele Rubod
Michel Cosson
Publication date: 01-06-2016
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2917-0

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Mobility and stress analysis of different surgical simulations during a sacral colpopexy, using a finite element model of the pelvic system

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Rectovaginal fistula repair using a gracilis muscle flap

Presentation and management of rectovaginal fistulas after delivery

Trends in the aetiology of urogenital fistula: a case of ‘retrogressive evolution’?

Mid-urethral slings on YouTube: quality information on the internet?

Is the levator–urethra gap helpful for diagnosing avulsion?

Urinary diversion for patients with inoperable obstetric vesicovaginal fistula: the Jos, Nigeria experience