{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
The Pull-Out Strength of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy and Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in a Cadaver Model.
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.
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