Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 6/2017

01-06-2017 | Original Article

Peek’s harpoon: a new device for the treatment of laparoscopic sacropexy. Preliminary study in unembalmed cadavers

Authors: Marta Girvent Vilarmau, Felipe Ojeda Pérez, Maria José Canto Rivera, Marian Lorente Gascón

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 6/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of the study is to facilitate the suture on the sacral promontory for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. We hypothesised that a new method of sacral anchorage using a biosynthetic material, the polyether ether ketone (PEEK) harpoon, might be adequate because of its tensile strength, might reduce complications owing to its well-known biocompatibility, and might shorten the duration of surgery.

Methods

We verified the feasibility of insertion and quantified the stress resistance of the harpoons placed in the promontory in nine fresh cadavers, using four stress tests in each case. Mean values were analysed and compared using the Wilcoxon and Fisher’s exact tests.

Results

The harpoon resists for at least 30 s against a pulling force of 1 N, 5 N and 10 N. Maximum tensile strength is 21 N for the harpoon and 32 N for the suture. Harpoons broke in 6 % and threads in 22 % of cases. Harpoons detached owing to ligament rupture in 64 % of the cases. Regarding failures of the whole complex, the failure involves the harpoon in 92 % of cases and the thread in 56 %. The four possible placements of the harpoon in the promontory were equally safe in terms of resistance to traction.

Conclusions

The PEEK harpoon can be easily anchored in the promontory. Thread is more resistant to traction than the harpoon, but the latter makes the surgical technique easier. Any of the four locations tested is feasible for anchoring the device.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:1418–21.CrossRefPubMed Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:1418–21.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Lo TS, Wang AC. Abdominal colposacropexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension for severe uterovaginal prolapse: a comparison. J Gynecol Surg. 1998;14:59–64.CrossRef Lo TS, Wang AC. Abdominal colposacropexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension for severe uterovaginal prolapse: a comparison. J Gynecol Surg. 1998;14:59–64.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:20–6.CrossRefPubMed Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:20–6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:360.e1–7.CrossRef Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:360.e1–7.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference White AB, Carrick KS, Corton MM, McIntire DD, Word RA, Rahn DD, et al. Optimal location and orientation of suture placement in abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(5):1098–103.CrossRefPubMed White AB, Carrick KS, Corton MM, McIntire DD, Word RA, Rahn DD, et al. Optimal location and orientation of suture placement in abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(5):1098–103.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRefPubMed Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Shiozawa T, Huebner M, Hirt B, Wallwiener D, Reisenauer C. Nerve-preserving sacrocolpopexy: anatomical study and surgical approach. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;152(1):103–7.CrossRefPubMed Shiozawa T, Huebner M, Hirt B, Wallwiener D, Reisenauer C. Nerve-preserving sacrocolpopexy: anatomical study and surgical approach. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;152(1):103–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Wieslander CK, Rahn DD, McIntire DD, Marinis SI, Wai CY, Schaffer JI, et al. Vascular anatomy of the presacral space in unembalmed female cadavers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1736–41.CrossRefPubMed Wieslander CK, Rahn DD, McIntire DD, Marinis SI, Wai CY, Schaffer JI, et al. Vascular anatomy of the presacral space in unembalmed female cadavers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1736–41.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Flynn MK, Romero AA, Amundsen CL, et al. Vascular anatomy of the presacral space, a fresh tissue cadaver dissection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1501–5.CrossRefPubMed Flynn MK, Romero AA, Amundsen CL, et al. Vascular anatomy of the presacral space, a fresh tissue cadaver dissection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1501–5.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Galmés I, Díaz E. ¿Son iguales todos los sistemas empleados para la incontinencia de orina mediante mallas libres de tensión? Act Urol Esp. 2004;28(7):487–96.CrossRef Galmés I, Díaz E. ¿Son iguales todos los sistemas empleados para la incontinencia de orina mediante mallas libres de tensión? Act Urol Esp. 2004;28(7):487–96.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Boukerrou M, Lambaudie E, Collinet P, Lacaze S, Mesdagh H, et al. Mechanical resistance of pelvic ligaments used for incontinence or prolapse surgery. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2004;32(7–8):601–6.CrossRefPubMed Boukerrou M, Lambaudie E, Collinet P, Lacaze S, Mesdagh H, et al. Mechanical resistance of pelvic ligaments used for incontinence or prolapse surgery. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2004;32(7–8):601–6.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Boukerrou M, Orazi G, Nayama M, et al. Promontofixation procedure: use of non-absorbable sutures or Tackers? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2003;32(6):524–8. Boukerrou M, Orazi G, Nayama M, et al. Promontofixation procedure: use of non-absorbable sutures or Tackers? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2003;32(6):524–8.
14.
go back to reference Gippini I, Navarro L, Contreras LA, Andeyro M, Cristóbal I. Cirugía reconstructiva del suelo pélvico: colposacropexia. Tokoginecol Pract. 2011;70(3):85–96. Gippini I, Navarro L, Contreras LA, Andeyro M, Cristóbal I. Cirugía reconstructiva del suelo pélvico: colposacropexia. Tokoginecol Pract. 2011;70(3):85–96.
Metadata
Title
Peek’s harpoon: a new device for the treatment of laparoscopic sacropexy. Preliminary study in unembalmed cadavers
Authors
Marta Girvent Vilarmau
Felipe Ojeda Pérez
Maria José Canto Rivera
Marian Lorente Gascón
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3168-4

Other articles of this Issue 6/2017

International Urogynecology Journal 6/2017 Go to the issue