Estelle Jeanditgautier1,2, Olivier Mayeur3, Mathias Brieu3, Gery Lamblin4, Chrystele Rubod5,3, Michel Cosson5,3. 1. Hopital Jeanne de Flandre, CHRU de Lille, University Lille-Nord de France, 1 rue Eugène Avinée, 59037, Lille Cedex, France. estelle.jdg@gmail.com. 2. Laboratoire Mécanique de Lille, UMR CNRS 8107, Ecole Centrale de Lille, 59651, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France. estelle.jdg@gmail.com. 3. Laboratoire Mécanique de Lille, UMR CNRS 8107, Ecole Centrale de Lille, 59651, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France. 4. Hopital Mere-enfant, CHRU Lyon, Lyon, France. 5. Hopital Jeanne de Flandre, CHRU de Lille, University Lille-Nord de France, 1 rue Eugène Avinée, 59037, Lille Cedex, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We aim to analyze the combined influence of the size of the mesh, the number of sutures, the combined use of an anterior and posterior mesh, and the tension applied to the promontory, on the mobility of the pelvic organs and on the sutures, using a Finite Element (FE) model of the female pelvic system during abdominal sacral colpopexy. METHODS: We used a FE model of the female pelvic system, which allowed us to simulate the mobility of the pelvic system and to evaluate problems related to female prolapse. The meshes were added to the geometrical model and then transferred to computing software. This analysis allowed us to compare the stress and mobility during a thrust effort in different situations. RESULTS: The bigger the mesh, the less mobility of both anterior and posterior organs there would be. This is accompanied by an increase in stress at the suture level. The combination of a posterior mesh with an anterior one decreases mobility and stress at the suture level. There is a particularly relevant stressing zone on the suture at the cervix. The increase in the number of sutures induces a decrease in the tension applied at each suture zone and has no impact on organ mobility. CONCLUSION: Our model enables us to simulate and analyze an infinite number of surgical hypotheses. Even if these results are not validated at a clinical level, we can observe the importance of the association of both an anterior and a posterior mesh or the number of sutures.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We aim to analyze the combined influence of the size of the mesh, the number of sutures, the combined use of an anterior and posterior mesh, and the tension applied to the promontory, on the mobility of the pelvic organs and on the sutures, using a Finite Element (FE) model of the female pelvic system during abdominal sacral colpopexy. METHODS: We used a FE model of the female pelvic system, which allowed us to simulate the mobility of the pelvic system and to evaluate problems related to female prolapse. The meshes were added to the geometrical model and then transferred to computing software. This analysis allowed us to compare the stress and mobility during a thrust effort in different situations. RESULTS: The bigger the mesh, the less mobility of both anterior and posterior organs there would be. This is accompanied by an increase in stress at the suture level. The combination of a posterior mesh with an anterior one decreases mobility and stress at the suture level. There is a particularly relevant stressing zone on the suture at the cervix. The increase in the number of sutures induces a decrease in the tension applied at each suture zone and has no impact on organ mobility. CONCLUSION: Our model enables us to simulate and analyze an infinite number of surgical hypotheses. Even if these results are not validated at a clinical level, we can observe the importance of the association of both an anterior and a posterior mesh or the number of sutures.
Authors: P Antiphon; S Elard; A Benyoussef; M Fofana; R Yiou; M Gettman; A Hoznek; D Vordos; D K Chopin; C C Abbou Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Olivier Mayeur; Jean-François Witz; Pauline Lecomte; Mathias Brieu; Michel Cosson; Karol Miller Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Geoffrey W Cundiff; Edward Varner; Anthony G Visco; Halina M Zyczynski; Charles W Nager; Peggy A Norton; Joseph Schaffer; Morton B Brown; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-10-31 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Ivan Ignjatovic; Milan Potic; Dragoslav Basic; Ljubomir Dinic; Aleksandar Skakic Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 2.894