Cargando…
Suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis
INTRODUCTION: Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in urogynecological surgery. Abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is currently considered to be the gold standard of treatment. The main problem remains the anatomical point of fixation as well as how sutures are placed. We evaluated the b...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203505/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33263782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04609-6 |
_version_ | 1783708180730085376 |
---|---|
author | Hachenberg, J. Sauerwald, A. Brunke, H. Ludwig, S. Scaal, M. Prescher, A. Eichler, C. |
author_facet | Hachenberg, J. Sauerwald, A. Brunke, H. Ludwig, S. Scaal, M. Prescher, A. Eichler, C. |
author_sort | Hachenberg, J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in urogynecological surgery. Abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is currently considered to be the gold standard of treatment. The main problem remains the anatomical point of fixation as well as how sutures are placed. We evaluated the biomechanical difference between an in-line ligament suture versus an orthogonal ligament suture and a single suture versus a continuous suture at the anterior longitudinal ligament in an in-vitro, sacrocolpopexy model. METHODS: Biomechanical in-vitro testing was performed on human, non-embalmed, female cadaver pelvises. An Instron test frame (tensinometer) was used for load/ displacement analysis. The average patient age was 75 years. Ligament preparation yielded 15 ligaments available for testing. Recorded parameters were the ultimate load, failure displacement, and stiffness. RESULTS: This in-vitro analysis of different suturing methods showed the difference between an orthogonal and an in-line approach to be the ultimate load. Orthogonal sutures displayed an ultimate load of 80 N while in-line suturing yielded only 57 N (p < 0.05). For the anterior longitudinal ligament, this study demonstrated that continuous suture is significantly superior to a single suture regarding failure displacement (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We established baseline biomechanical parameters for the sacrospinous ligament and anterior longitudinal ligament. An orthogonal suture is superior to an in-line suture in an in-vitro model. A continuous suture is superior to a single suture at the anterior longitudinal ligament. Clinical trials might be able to evaluate whether any clinical significance can be established from these findings. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8203505 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82035052021-06-17 Suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis Hachenberg, J. Sauerwald, A. Brunke, H. Ludwig, S. Scaal, M. Prescher, A. Eichler, C. Int Urogynecol J Original Article INTRODUCTION: Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in urogynecological surgery. Abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is currently considered to be the gold standard of treatment. The main problem remains the anatomical point of fixation as well as how sutures are placed. We evaluated the biomechanical difference between an in-line ligament suture versus an orthogonal ligament suture and a single suture versus a continuous suture at the anterior longitudinal ligament in an in-vitro, sacrocolpopexy model. METHODS: Biomechanical in-vitro testing was performed on human, non-embalmed, female cadaver pelvises. An Instron test frame (tensinometer) was used for load/ displacement analysis. The average patient age was 75 years. Ligament preparation yielded 15 ligaments available for testing. Recorded parameters were the ultimate load, failure displacement, and stiffness. RESULTS: This in-vitro analysis of different suturing methods showed the difference between an orthogonal and an in-line approach to be the ultimate load. Orthogonal sutures displayed an ultimate load of 80 N while in-line suturing yielded only 57 N (p < 0.05). For the anterior longitudinal ligament, this study demonstrated that continuous suture is significantly superior to a single suture regarding failure displacement (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We established baseline biomechanical parameters for the sacrospinous ligament and anterior longitudinal ligament. An orthogonal suture is superior to an in-line suture in an in-vitro model. A continuous suture is superior to a single suture at the anterior longitudinal ligament. Clinical trials might be able to evaluate whether any clinical significance can be established from these findings. Springer International Publishing 2020-12-02 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8203505/ /pubmed/33263782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04609-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Hachenberg, J. Sauerwald, A. Brunke, H. Ludwig, S. Scaal, M. Prescher, A. Eichler, C. Suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis |
title | Suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis |
title_full | Suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis |
title_fullStr | Suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis |
title_short | Suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis |
title_sort | suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203505/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33263782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04609-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hachenbergj suturingmethodsinprolapsesurgeryabiomechanicalanalysis AT sauerwalda suturingmethodsinprolapsesurgeryabiomechanicalanalysis AT brunkeh suturingmethodsinprolapsesurgeryabiomechanicalanalysis AT ludwigs suturingmethodsinprolapsesurgeryabiomechanicalanalysis AT scaalm suturingmethodsinprolapsesurgeryabiomechanicalanalysis AT preschera suturingmethodsinprolapsesurgeryabiomechanicalanalysis AT eichlerc suturingmethodsinprolapsesurgeryabiomechanicalanalysis |