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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hachenberg, J., Sauerwald, A., Brunke, H., Ludwig, S., Scaal, M., Prescher, A., Eichler, C.
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