Keisha A Jones1, Andrew Feola, Leslie Meyn, Steven D Abramowitch, Pamela A Moalli. 1. Magee-Womens Research Institute, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To improve our understanding of the differences in commonly used synthetic prolapse meshes, we compared four newer generation meshes to Gynecare PS using a tensile testing protocol. We hypothesize that the newer meshes have inferior biomechanical properties. METHODS: Meshes were loaded to failure (n = 5 per group) generating load-elongation curves from which the stiffness, the load at failure, and the relative elongation were determined. Additional mesh samples (n = 3) underwent a cyclic loading protocol to measure permanent elongation in response to subfailure loading. RESULTS: With the exception of Popmesh, which displayed uniform stiffness, other meshes were characterized by a bilinear behavior. Newer meshes were 70-90% less stiff than Gynecare (p < 0.05) and more readily deformed in response to uniaxial and cyclical loading (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Relative to Gynecare, the newer generation of prolapse meshes were significantly less stiff, with irreversible deformation at significantly lower loads.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To improve our understanding of the differences in commonly used synthetic prolapse meshes, we compared four newer generation meshes to Gynecare PS using a tensile testing protocol. We hypothesize that the newer meshes have inferior biomechanical properties. METHODS: Meshes were loaded to failure (n = 5 per group) generating load-elongation curves from which the stiffness, the load at failure, and the relative elongation were determined. Additional mesh samples (n = 3) underwent a cyclic loading protocol to measure permanent elongation in response to subfailure loading. RESULTS: With the exception of Popmesh, which displayed uniform stiffness, other meshes were characterized by a bilinear behavior. Newer meshes were 70-90% less stiff than Gynecare (p < 0.05) and more readily deformed in response to uniaxial and cyclical loading (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Relative to Gynecare, the newer generation of prolapse meshes were significantly less stiff, with irreversible deformation at significantly lower loads.
Authors: Michel Cosson; Philippe Debodinance; Malik Boukerrou; M P Chauvet; Pierre Lobry; Gilles Crépin; Anne Ego Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2003-07-25
Authors: Pamela A Moalli; Noah Papas; Shawn Menefee; Mike Albo; Leslie Meyn; Steven D Abramowitch Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2008-01-09
Authors: Ingrid E Nygaard; Rebecca McCreery; Linda Brubaker; AnnaMarie Connolly; Geoff Cundiff; Anne M Weber; Halina Zyczynski Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Stephen Tottey; Scott A Johnson; Peter M Crapo; Janet E Reing; Li Zhang; Hongbin Jiang; Christopher J Medberry; Brandon Reines; Stephen F Badylak Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2010-09-25 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: William R Barone; Rouzbeh Amini; Spandan Maiti; Pamela A Moalli; Steven D Abramowitch Journal: J Biomech Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 2.712
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
Authors: Yves Ozog; Maja L Konstantinovic; Erika Werbrouck; Dirk De Ridder; Mazza Edoardo; Jan Deprest Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Masayuki Endo; Andrew Feola; Nikhil Sindhwani; Stefano Manodoro; Jarek Vlacil; Alexander Carl Engels; Filip Claus; Jan A Deprest Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 2.894