Cargando…

A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model

PURPOSE: Many different surgical approaches have been established for the repair of a pelvic organ prolapse. Especially in laparoscopic surgery, it is important to generate easy surgical techniques with similar stability. This study shall simplify the choice of mesh by evaluating three polypropylene...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trageser, Nadja, Sauerwald, Axel, Ludwig, Sebastian, Malter, Wolfram, Wegmann, Kilian, Karapanos, Leonidas, Radosa, Julia, Jansen, Alina Katharina, Eichler, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8918124/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34845538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06344-9
_version_ 1784668667782365184
author Trageser, Nadja
Sauerwald, Axel
Ludwig, Sebastian
Malter, Wolfram
Wegmann, Kilian
Karapanos, Leonidas
Radosa, Julia
Jansen, Alina Katharina
Eichler, Christian
author_facet Trageser, Nadja
Sauerwald, Axel
Ludwig, Sebastian
Malter, Wolfram
Wegmann, Kilian
Karapanos, Leonidas
Radosa, Julia
Jansen, Alina Katharina
Eichler, Christian
author_sort Trageser, Nadja
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Many different surgical approaches have been established for the repair of a pelvic organ prolapse. Especially in laparoscopic surgery, it is important to generate easy surgical techniques with similar stability. This study shall simplify the choice of mesh by evaluating three polypropylene meshes regarding their biomechanical properties. METHODS: Biomechanical testing was performed in the porcine model. The meshes are fixated on porcine fresh cadaver cervices after subtotal hysterectomy. The apical part of the mesh is fixated with parallel screw clamps at the testing frame. Forty-one trials were performed overall, subdivided into four subgroups. The groups differ in mesh type and fixation method. Maximum load, displacement at failure and stiffness parameters were evaluated with an Instron 5565(®) test frame. RESULTS: SERATEX(®) E11 PA (E11) showed the highest values for maximum load (199 ± 29N), failure displacement (71 ± 12 mm) and stiffness (3.93 ± 0.59 N/mm). There was no significant difference in all three evaluated parameters between SERATEX(®) B3 PA (B3) and SERATEX(®) SlimSling(®) with bilateral fixation (SSB). SERATEX(®) SlimSling(®) with unilateral fixation (SSU) had the lowest stiffness (0.91 ± 0.19 N/mm) and maximum load (30 ± 2 N) but no significant difference in displacement at failure. CONCLUSION: All meshes achieved a good tensile strength, but the results of maximum load show that the E11 is superior to the other meshes. Through a bilateral fixation of SERATEX(®) SlimSling(®), a simple operating method is generated without a loss of stability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8918124
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89181242022-03-17 A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model Trageser, Nadja Sauerwald, Axel Ludwig, Sebastian Malter, Wolfram Wegmann, Kilian Karapanos, Leonidas Radosa, Julia Jansen, Alina Katharina Eichler, Christian Arch Gynecol Obstet General Gynecology PURPOSE: Many different surgical approaches have been established for the repair of a pelvic organ prolapse. Especially in laparoscopic surgery, it is important to generate easy surgical techniques with similar stability. This study shall simplify the choice of mesh by evaluating three polypropylene meshes regarding their biomechanical properties. METHODS: Biomechanical testing was performed in the porcine model. The meshes are fixated on porcine fresh cadaver cervices after subtotal hysterectomy. The apical part of the mesh is fixated with parallel screw clamps at the testing frame. Forty-one trials were performed overall, subdivided into four subgroups. The groups differ in mesh type and fixation method. Maximum load, displacement at failure and stiffness parameters were evaluated with an Instron 5565(®) test frame. RESULTS: SERATEX(®) E11 PA (E11) showed the highest values for maximum load (199 ± 29N), failure displacement (71 ± 12 mm) and stiffness (3.93 ± 0.59 N/mm). There was no significant difference in all three evaluated parameters between SERATEX(®) B3 PA (B3) and SERATEX(®) SlimSling(®) with bilateral fixation (SSB). SERATEX(®) SlimSling(®) with unilateral fixation (SSU) had the lowest stiffness (0.91 ± 0.19 N/mm) and maximum load (30 ± 2 N) but no significant difference in displacement at failure. CONCLUSION: All meshes achieved a good tensile strength, but the results of maximum load show that the E11 is superior to the other meshes. Through a bilateral fixation of SERATEX(®) SlimSling(®), a simple operating method is generated without a loss of stability. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-11-29 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8918124/ /pubmed/34845538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06344-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 General Gynecology
Trageser, Nadja
Sauerwald, Axel
Ludwig, Sebastian
Malter, Wolfram
Wegmann, Kilian
Karapanos, Leonidas
Radosa, Julia
Jansen, Alina Katharina
Eichler, Christian
A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model
title A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model
title_full A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model
title_fullStr A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model
title_full_unstemmed A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model
title_short A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model
title_sort biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model
topic General Gynecology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8918124/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34845538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06344-9
work_keys_str_mv AT tragesernadja abiomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT sauerwaldaxel abiomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT ludwigsebastian abiomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT malterwolfram abiomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT wegmannkilian abiomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT karapanosleonidas abiomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT radosajulia abiomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT jansenalinakatharina abiomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT eichlerchristian abiomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT tragesernadja biomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT sauerwaldaxel biomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT ludwigsebastian biomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT malterwolfram biomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT wegmannkilian biomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT karapanosleonidas biomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT radosajulia biomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT jansenalinakatharina biomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel
AT eichlerchristian biomechanicalanalysisofdifferentmeshesforreconstructionsofthepelvicfloorintheporcinemodel