The Pull-Out Strength of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy and Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in a Cadaver Model.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Tsia-Shu Lo, Louiza Erika Rellora, Eyal Rom, Wu-Chiao Hsieh, Chia-Hsuan Yang, Ai-Leen Ro
{"title":"The Pull-Out Strength of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy and Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in a Cadaver Model.","authors":"Tsia-Shu Lo, Louiza Erika Rellora, Eyal Rom, Wu-Chiao Hsieh, Chia-Hsuan Yang, Ai-Leen Ro","doi":"10.1007/s00192-025-06298-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>The objective was to determine the biomechanical strength of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) by evaluating their pull-out forces.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted during a cadaver workshop in Taiwan, which allowed the participants to perform multiple vaginal and abdominal procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. The study focused on biochemical strength assessment of LSH and SSLF. Six fresh cadavers underwent LSH or SSLF using various anchoring techniques. LSH procedures used sutures and tackers to fixate to the sacral promontory or uterus, whereas SSLF was performed using the tackers only. A digital crane scale was used to measure pull-out strength for each procedure. Results recorded the maximum load at failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SSLF procedure provided stronger apical support than LSH, with pull-out forces ranging from 25.3 to 52.5 N compared with LSH promontory fixation, which ranged from 12.6 to 13.7 N. Tackers used in SSLF showed consistent load bearing across all samples (44-47 N), whereas LSH grip strength varied with stitch numbers and anatomical positioning on the sacral promontory, with an average of 12.6 N. Vaginal load values are relatively consistent, with an average of 42.6 N across all cadavers. The instructor's initial attempt consistently demonstrated the highest strength, emphasizing the impact of the technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The SSLF procedure provided superior apical support to LSH, suggesting that it might be preferable for managing POP. Variations in ligament condition affected outcomes, but SSLF provided more reliable support. A need for further research in live subjects is needed to verify the optimal anchoring approach in POP repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06298-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: The objective was to determine the biomechanical strength of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) by evaluating their pull-out forces.

Methods: This study was conducted during a cadaver workshop in Taiwan, which allowed the participants to perform multiple vaginal and abdominal procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. The study focused on biochemical strength assessment of LSH and SSLF. Six fresh cadavers underwent LSH or SSLF using various anchoring techniques. LSH procedures used sutures and tackers to fixate to the sacral promontory or uterus, whereas SSLF was performed using the tackers only. A digital crane scale was used to measure pull-out strength for each procedure. Results recorded the maximum load at failure.

Results: The SSLF procedure provided stronger apical support than LSH, with pull-out forces ranging from 25.3 to 52.5 N compared with LSH promontory fixation, which ranged from 12.6 to 13.7 N. Tackers used in SSLF showed consistent load bearing across all samples (44-47 N), whereas LSH grip strength varied with stitch numbers and anatomical positioning on the sacral promontory, with an average of 12.6 N. Vaginal load values are relatively consistent, with an average of 42.6 N across all cadavers. The instructor's initial attempt consistently demonstrated the highest strength, emphasizing the impact of the technique.

Conclusions: The SSLF procedure provided superior apical support to LSH, suggesting that it might be preferable for managing POP. Variations in ligament condition affected outcomes, but SSLF provided more reliable support. A need for further research in live subjects is needed to verify the optimal anchoring approach in POP repair.

尸体模型腹腔镜骶宫闭术及阴道骶棘韧带固定的拉出强度。
前言和假设:目的是通过评估其拔出力来确定腹腔镜骶宫闭术(LSH)和骶棘韧带固定(SSLF)的生物力学强度。方法:本研究是在台湾的尸体工作坊中进行的,允许参与者进行多种阴道和腹部手术治疗盆腔器官脱垂。研究重点是LSH和SSLF的生化强度评估。6具新鲜尸体使用各种锚定技术进行LSH或SSLF。LSH手术使用缝合线和固定器固定骶骨岬或子宫,而SSLF手术仅使用固定器。数字起重机秤用于测量每个程序的拉出强度。结果记录了失效时的最大载荷。结果:与12.6 - 13.7 N的LSH海角固定相比,SSLF手术提供了比LSH更强的根尖支持,其拔出力范围为25.3 - 52.5 N,与LSH相比,LSH海角固定的拔出力范围为12.6 - 13.7 N, SSLF中使用的钉钳在所有样本中显示出一致的承重(44-47 N),而LSH的握力随针数和骶骨海角的解剖位置而变化,平均为12.6 N,阴道负荷值相对一致,所有尸体的平均为42.6 N。教练最初的尝试始终表现出最高的力量,强调技术的影响。结论:SSLF手术为LSH提供了良好的根尖支持,可能是治疗POP的首选方法。韧带状况的变化影响结果,但SSLF提供了更可靠的支持。需要进一步的活体研究来验证在POP修复中的最佳锚定方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信