Literature DB >> 19384126

Optimal location and orientation of suture placement in abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Amanda B White1, Kelley S Carrick, Marlene M Corton, Donald D McIntire, R Ann Word, David D Rahn, Clifford Y Wai.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the strongest location and optimal orientation of suture placement in the anterior longitudinal ligament for abdominal sacrocolpopexy in female cadavers.
METHODS: The anterior longitudinal ligament was exposed below the level of the aortic bifurcation in 23 unembalmed female cadavers. To the right of midline of the vertebral column, sutures were placed in a horizontal orientation into the ligament at the sacral promontory, 1 and 2 cm above (sacral promontory+1 and sacral promontory+2), and 1, 2, and 3 cm below (sacral promontory-1, sacral promontory-2 and sacral promontory-3). At these same locations, but to the left of midline, sutures were placed in a vertical orientation. Pull-out force and ligament thickness at each level of testing were measured. Data were analyzed using Student t test and repeated measures analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Sutures (either horizontally or vertically placed) had greater pull-out strengths at or above, compared with those placed below, the level of the sacral promontory. At sacral promontory and sacral promontory+1, there were no differences in the pull-out strengths of the ligament when sutures were placed in either orientation. However, horizontally placed sutures had significantly greater pull-out strengths than vertically placed sutures at sacral promontory+2, sacral promontory-1 and sacral promontory-2. Ligament thickness decreased from 2 cm above (mean+/-standard error of the mean sacral promontory+2, 1.8+/-0.1 mm) to 3 cm below (sacral promontory-3, 1.3+/-0.1 mm) the sacral promontory.
CONCLUSION: Sutures placed in the anterior longitudinal ligament at or above the sacral promontory are more secure than those placed below. Horizontally oriented sutures should be considered for mesh attachment below the sacral promontory because they are significantly stronger when compared with vertically placed sutures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19384126     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819ec4ee

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  10 in total

Review 1.  Pearls and pitfalls of mesh surgery.

Authors:  Ajay Rane; Jay Iyer
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2013-01-05

Review 2.  Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Kamran P Sajadi; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  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
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Effect of mesh width on apical support after sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Sunil Balgobin; Joseph L Fitzwater; Donald D McIntire; Imelda J Delgado; Clifford Y Wai
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-12-29       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pectouteropexy: an alternative uterus-sparing technique for pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Taner Usta; Tolga Karacan; Ahmet Kale; Sevgin Mutlu; Talha Tıryakı
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Contemporary Use and Techniques of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy With or Without Robotic Assistance for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Authors:  Patrick J Culligan; Cristina M Saiz; Peter L Rosenblatt
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 7.623

Review 7.  Pyogenic spondylodiscitis associated with sacral colpopexy and rectopexy: report of two cases and evaluation of the literature.

Authors:  Katie Propst; Elena Tunitsky-Bitton; Megan O Schimpf; Beri Ridgeway
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Subjective and objective outcomes 1 year after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Charbel G Salamon; Patrick J Culligan
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-02-10

9.  Suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  J Hachenberg; A Sauerwald; A Prescher; C Eichler; H Brunke; S Ludwig; M Scaal
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Spondylodiscitis after minimally invasive recto- and colpo-sacropexy: Report of a case and systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Philip C Müller; Caroline Berchtold; Christoph Kuemmerli; Claudio Ruzza; Kaspar Z'Graggen; Daniel C Steinemann
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2020 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.407

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.