OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of using the sacro-spinous ligament (SSL) as a fixation point for anterior-apical pelvic floor compartment mesh implants. The apical support achieved with the sacro-spinous ligament mesh fixation is considered adequate, as it provides a high and stronger anchoring point. Even though, meshes for anterior pelvic floor reconstruction are traditionally anchored to the arcus tendineous fascia pelvis (ATFP). The authors presumed that fixing the anterior mesh to the sacro-spinous ligament instead of the ATFP is both feasible and safe. The present study evaluated the anatomical aspects and relations of a modified tissue passage with sacro-spinous fixation of the anterior apical mesh arms. METHODS: In 5 embalmed female cadavers and 1 fresh female cadaver, the apical arms of the anterior needle-guided mesh were placed through the SSLs rather than through the ATFP, using a transgluteal approach. The distances between the mesh arms and the ureters and uterine arteries were measured. RESULTS: The minimal final distance between the mesh arms and the ureters or uterine arteries was 1.5 cm in the embalmed cadavers, but only 5 mm in the fresh cadaver. However, when analyzing the procedure carefully, it was noted that during dissection the ureters and arteries were pushed medially by the surgeon's finger, thus the operative procedure did not entail any real risk of injury to these structures. The introduced surgical needle caused no trauma to any adjacent cadaveric organs. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior pelvic floor meshes may be safely anchored to the SSL, thus potentially improving the apical support.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of using the sacro-spinous ligament (SSL) as a fixation point for anterior-apical pelvic floor compartment mesh implants. The apical support achieved with the sacro-spinous ligament mesh fixation is considered adequate, as it provides a high and stronger anchoring point. Even though, meshes for anterior pelvic floor reconstruction are traditionally anchored to the arcus tendineous fascia pelvis (ATFP). The authors presumed that fixing the anterior mesh to the sacro-spinous ligament instead of the ATFP is both feasible and safe. The present study evaluated the anatomical aspects and relations of a modified tissue passage with sacro-spinous fixation of the anterior apical mesh arms. METHODS: In 5 embalmed female cadavers and 1 fresh female cadaver, the apical arms of the anterior needle-guided mesh were placed through the SSLs rather than through the ATFP, using a transgluteal approach. The distances between the mesh arms and the ureters and uterine arteries were measured. RESULTS: The minimal final distance between the mesh arms and the ureters or uterine arteries was 1.5 cm in the embalmed cadavers, but only 5 mm in the fresh cadaver. However, when analyzing the procedure carefully, it was noted that during dissection the ureters and arteries were pushed medially by the surgeon's finger, thus the operative procedure did not entail any real risk of injury to these structures. The introduced surgical needle caused no trauma to any adjacent cadaveric organs. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior pelvic floor meshes may be safely anchored to the SSL, thus potentially improving the apical support.