Estelle Jean Dit Gautier1,2,3,4, Olivier Mayeur5,6,7, Julien Lepage8, Mathias Brieu5,6,7, Michel Cosson8,9,5,6, Chrystele Rubod8,9,5,6. 1. University Lille, Faculty of Medicine, F-59000, Lille, France. estelle.jeanditgautier@chru-lille.fr. 2. Gynecologic Surgery Unit, Lille University Hospital Center, F-59000, Lille, France. estelle.jeanditgautier@chru-lille.fr. 3. University Lille, FRE 3723 - LML - Laboratoire de Mécanique de Lille, F-59000, Lille, France. estelle.jeanditgautier@chru-lille.fr. 4. CNRS, FRE 3723, F-59000, Lille, France. estelle.jeanditgautier@chru-lille.fr. 5. University Lille, FRE 3723 - LML - Laboratoire de Mécanique de Lille, F-59000, Lille, France. 6. CNRS, FRE 3723, F-59000, Lille, France. 7. Centrale Lille, F-59000, Lille, France. 8. University Lille, Faculty of Medicine, F-59000, Lille, France. 9. Gynecologic Surgery Unit, Lille University Hospital Center, F-59000, Lille, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We studied the geometry of and changes in structures that play an important role in stabilizing the pelvic system during pregnancy using a numerical system at different gestational ages and postpartum. METHODS: We developed a parturient numerical model to assess pelvic structures at different gestational stages (16, 32, and 38 weeks) and postpartum (2 months and 1 year) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Organs, muscles, and ligaments were segmented to generate a 3D model of the pelvis. We studied changes in the length of uterosacral ligaments (USL) and thickness of the puborectal portion of the levator ani muscle (LAM) during and after pregnancy. We used this model to perform finite element (FE) simulation and analyze deformations of these structures under stress from the increase in uterine weight. RESULTS: Analysis reveals an increase in the length of US ligaments at 16, 32, and 38 weeks. Two months after delivery, it decreases without returning to the length at 16 weeks of pregnancy. Similar changes were observed for the puborectal portion of the LAM. Variations observed in these structures are not equivalent to other anatomical structures of pelvic suspension. FE simulation with increased uterus weight does not lead to those findings. CONCLUSION: This analysis brings new elements and a new focus for discussion relating to changes in pelvic balance of parturient women that are not simply linked to the increase in uterine volume.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We studied the geometry of and changes in structures that play an important role in stabilizing the pelvic system during pregnancy using a numerical system at different gestational ages and postpartum. METHODS: We developed a parturient numerical model to assess pelvic structures at different gestational stages (16, 32, and 38 weeks) and postpartum (2 months and 1 year) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Organs, muscles, and ligaments were segmented to generate a 3D model of the pelvis. We studied changes in the length of uterosacral ligaments (USL) and thickness of the puborectal portion of the levator ani muscle (LAM) during and after pregnancy. We used this model to perform finite element (FE) simulation and analyze deformations of these structures under stress from the increase in uterine weight. RESULTS: Analysis reveals an increase in the length of US ligaments at 16, 32, and 38 weeks. Two months after delivery, it decreases without returning to the length at 16 weeks of pregnancy. Similar changes were observed for the puborectal portion of the LAM. Variations observed in these structures are not equivalent to other anatomical structures of pelvic suspension. FE simulation with increased uterus weight does not lead to those findings. CONCLUSION: This analysis brings new elements and a new focus for discussion relating to changes in pelvic balance of parturient women that are not simply linked to the increase in uterine volume.
Entities:
Keywords:
Finite element model; Geometrical changes; Levator ani muscle; Pregnancy; Uterosacral ligaments
Authors: Lennox Hoyte; Margot S Damaser; Simon K Warfield; Giridhar Chukkapalli; Amitava Majumdar; Dong Ju Choi; Abhishek Trivedi; Petr Krysl Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-06-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Dulce A Oliveira; Marco P L Parente; Begoña Calvo; Teresa Mascarenhas; Renato M Natal Jorge Journal: J Biomech Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 2.712
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: Guri Rortveit; Jeanette S Brown; David H Thom; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Jennifer M Creasman; Leslee L Subak Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Daniela Ulrich; Sharon L Edwards; Kai Su; Jacinta F White; John A M Ramshaw; Graham Jenkin; Jan Deprest; Anna Rosamilia; Jerome A Werkmeister; Caroline E Gargett Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 3.240