Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 9/2023

08-05-2023 | Sacrocolpopexy | Original Article

Comparative anatomy of the ovine and human pelvis for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: evaluating the effectiveness of the ovine model

Authors: Vanessa Viegas Madrid, Javier Casado Varela, Silvia Enciso, José Miguel Gómez de Vicente, Francisco Miguel Sánchez Margallo, Luis López-Fando

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 9/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is a functional reconstructive surgery used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in middle-aged women. Although LSC is widely used, its implementation is hindered by perceived technical difficulties and surgical learning curves. Surgeons require adequate experience with LSC prior to performing the procedure on patients to improve their quality of life. This study is aimed at demonstrating the effectiveness of the ovine model (OM) for training and research in LSC, while also comparing anatomical differences between ovine and human models during the procedure.

Methods

The animal model and training were provided by the Jesús Usón Minimally Invasive Surgery Centre. Urologists and gynecologists with experience in LSC participated in a course and their findings were recorded and documented.

Results

Differences in patient positioning, trocar placement, and reperitonealization were identified between the ovine and human models. Hysterectomy is always performed in the ovine model, whereas it is not mandatory in humans. There are also differences in the dissection of the levator ani muscle and attachment point of the posterior mesh to the uterus between the two models. Despite differences in some areas, the ovine pelvic structure and vagina are similar in size to those of humans.

Conclusions

The ovine model is a valuable tool for surgeons in their learning curve for LSC, allowing for safe and effective practice prior to performing the procedure on patients. The use of the OM can help to improve the quality of life for women affected by pelvic organ prolapse.
Literature
1.
Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1278–83.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hunskaar S, Vinsnes A. The quality of life in women with urinary incontinence as measured by the sickness impact profile. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39(4):378–82.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Mattsson NK, Karjalainen PK, Tolppanen AM, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and quality of life—a nationwide cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(6):588.e1–10.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Culligan PJ, Murphy M, Blackwell L, Hammons G, Graham C, Heit MH. Long-term success of abdominal sacral colpopexy using synthetic mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(6):1473–82.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014
8.
Costantini E, Brubaker L, Cervigni M, et al. Sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based review and recommendations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;2016(205):60–5.CrossRef
9.
Benson JT. 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(6):1418–21; discussion 1421–2.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Romero Selas E, Mugnier C, Piechaud PT, et al. Laparoscopic promontofixation. Our technique. Actas Urol Esp Engl Ed. 2010;34(10):837–44.CrossRef
11.
Mustafa S, Amit A, Filmar S, et al. Implementation of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: establishment of a learning curve and short-term outcomes. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(4):983–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Akladios CY, Dautun D, Saussine C, Baldauf JJ, Mathelin C, Wattiez A. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for female genital organ prolapse: establishment of a learning curve. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;149(2):218–21.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Claerhout F, Verguts J, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Lewi P, Deprest J. Analysis of the learning process for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: identification of challenging steps. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2014;25(9):1185–91.CrossRef
14.
Mori da Cunha MGMC, Mackova K, Hympanova LH, Bortolini MAT, Deprest J. Animal models for pelvic organ prolapse: systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(6):1331–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Urbankova I, Callewaert G, Sindhwani N, et al. Transvaginal mesh insertion in the ovine model. J Vis Exp. 2017;125:1–8.
16.
Urbankova I, Callewaert G, Blacher S, et al. First delivery and ovariectomy affect biomechanical and structural properties of the vagina in the ovine model. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(3):455–64.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Urbankova I, Vdoviakova K, Rynkevic R, et al. Comparative anatomy of the ovine and female pelvis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2017;82(6):582–91.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Mansoor A, Curinier S, Campagne-Loiseau S, Platteeuw L, Jacquetin B, Rabischong B. Development of an ovine model for training in vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1595–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
21.
Pan K, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xu H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;132(3):284–91.CrossRef
22.
Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):303–18.
23.
De Las Heras Guillamón M, Borderías Clau L. La oveja como modelo experimental de animal grande en la investigación de patologías respiratorias. Arch Bronconeumol. 2010;46(10):499–501.CrossRef
24.
DeLancey JO. Anatomy and biomechanics of genital prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1993;36(4):897–909.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparative anatomy of the ovine and human pelvis for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: evaluating the effectiveness of the ovine model
Authors
Vanessa Viegas Madrid
Javier Casado Varela
Silvia Enciso
José Miguel Gómez de Vicente
Francisco Miguel Sánchez Margallo
Luis López-Fando
Publication date
08-05-2023
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Keyword
Sacrocolpopexy
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 9/2023
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-023-05549-7

Other articles of this Issue 9/2023

International Urogynecology Journal 9/2023 Go to the issue

Original Article

A comparison of MRI-based pelvic floor support measures between young and old women with prolapse

Original Article

Impact of regional multi-disciplinary team on the management of complex urogynaecology conditions

Original Article

Comparison of the efficacy of intravaginal electrical stimulation in women with idiopathic overactive bladder naive and refractory to pharmacological agents

Original Article

Translation and validation of the Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire in the Urdu language

Original Article

Evaluation of gastrointestinal tract injury within 1 year of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse

Original Article

Validation of the short forms of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire in Estonian