Are biomechanical properties predictive of the success of prostheses used in stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse? A systematic review

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 13-21

  Mangera, Altaf ^a,b   Bullock, Anthony J ^a   Chapple, Christopher R ^b   MacNeil, Sheila ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b SHEFFIELD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

biomechanics; pelvic organ prolapse; prostheses; stress urinary incontinence; ultimate tensile strength; uniaxial testing; Young's modulus

Indexed keywords

BIOMECHANICS; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MATERIALS TESTING; NONHUMAN; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSTHESIS; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REVIEW; STRESS INCONTINENCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TENSILE STRENGTH; YOUNG MODULUS;

ANIMALS; BIOMECHANICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, ANIMAL; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINARY INCONTINENCE, STRESS;

EID: 84856226015     PISSN: 07332467     EISSN: 15206777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nau.21156     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89: 501-6.
2. Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, et al. Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 646-51.
3. Brown JS, Waetjen LE, Subak LL, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States, 1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 712-6.
4. Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 14: CD004014.
5. Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY,. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: Current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184: 1496-501.
6. Goh JT,. Biomechanical properties of prolapsed vaginal tissue in pre- and postmenopausal women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2002; 13: 76-9.
7. Woo SL, Debski RE, Withrow JD, et al. Biomechanics of knee ligaments. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27: 533-43.
8. Rubod C, Boukerrou M, Brieu M, et al. Biomechanical properties of vaginal tissue. Part 1: New experimental protocol. J Urol 2007; 178: 320-5.
9. Moon DK, Woo SL, Takakura Y, et al. The effects of refreezing on the viscoelastic and tensile properties of ligaments. J Biomech 2006; 39: 1153-7.
10. Lanir Y, Fung YC,. Two-dimensional mechanical properties of rabbit skin. II. Experimental results. J Biomech 1974; 7: 171-82.
11. Yin FC, Fung YC,. Mechanical properties of isolated mammalian ureteral segments. Am J Physiol 1971; 221: 1484-93.
12. Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JO,. On the biomechanics of vaginal birth and common sequelae. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2009; 11: 163-76.
13. Baragi RV, DeLancey JO, Caspari R, et al. Differences in pelvic floor area between African American and European American women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 111-5.
14. Ettema GJ, Goh JT, Forwood MR,. A new method to measure elastic properties of plastic-viscoelastic connective tissue. Med Eng Phys 1998; 20: 308-14.
15. Ettema GJ,. Mechanical behaviour of rat skeletal muscle during fatiguing stretch-shortening cycles. Exp Physiol 1997; 82: 107-19.
16. Zimmern PE, Eberhart RC, Bhatt A,. Methodology for biomechanical testing of fresh anterior wall vaginal samples from postmenopausal women undergoing cystocele repair. Neurourol Urodyn 2009; 28: 325-9.
17. Rubod C, Boukerrou M, Brieu M, et al. Biomechanical properties of vaginal tissue: Preliminary results. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008; 19: 811-6.
18. Cosson M, Lambaudie E, Boukerrou M, et al. A biomechanical study of the strength of vaginal tissues. Results on 16 post-menopausal patients presenting with genital prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004; 112: 201-5.
19. Lei L, Song Y, Chen R,. Biomechanical properties of prolapsed vaginal tissue in pre- and postmenopausal women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2007; 18: 603-7.
20. Hilger WS, Walter A, Zobitz ME, et al. Histological and biomechanical evaluation of implanted graft materials in a rabbit vaginal and abdominal model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1826-31.
21. Pierce LM, Grunlan MA, Hou Y, et al. Biomechanical properties of synthetic and biologic graft materials following long-term implantation in the rabbit abdomen and vagina. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 549-8.
22. Spiess PE, Rabah D, Herrera C, et al. The tensile properties of tension-free vaginal tape and cadaveric fascia lata in an in vivo rat model. BJU Int 2004; 93: 171-3.
23. Choe JM, Kothandapani R, James L, et al. Autologous, cadaveric, and synthetic materials used in sling surgery: Comparative biomechanical analysis. Urology 2001; 58: 482-6.
24. Jones KA, Feola A, Meyn L, et al. Tensile properties of commonly used prolapse meshes. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009; 20: 847-53.
25. Moalli PA, Papas N, Menefee S, et al. Tensile properties of five commonly used mid-urethral slings relative to the TVT. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008; 19: 655-63.
26. Krause H, Bennett M, Forwood M, et al. Biomechanical properties of raw meshes used in pelvic floor reconstruction. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008; 19: 1677-81.
27. Lemer ML, Chaikin DC, Blaivas JG,. Tissue strength analysis of autologous and cadaveric allografts for the pubovaginal sling. Neurourol Urodyn 1999; 18: 497-503.
28. Dietz HP, Vancaillie P, Svehla M, et al. Mechanical properties of urogynecologic implant materials. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2003; 14: 239-43.
29. Afonso JS, Martins PA, Girao MJ, et al. Mechanical properties of polypropylene mesh used in pelvic floor repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008; 19: 375-80.
30. Walter AJ, Morse AN, Leslie KO, et al. Changes in tensile strength of cadaveric human fascia lata after implantation in a rabbit vagina model. J Urol 2003; 169: 1907-10.
31. Boukerrou M, Boulanger L, Rubod C, et al. Study of the biomechanical properties of synthetic mesh implanted in vivo. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 134: 262-7.
32. Atmaca AF, Serefoglu EC, Eroglu M, et al. Time-dependent changes in biomechanical properties of four different synthetic materials in a rabbit model and the importance in respect to sling surgery. Urol Int 2008; 81: 456-61.
33. Zorn KC, Spiess PE, Singh G, et al. Long-term tensile properties of tension-free vaginal tape, suprapubic arc sling system and urethral sling in an in vivo rat model. J Urol 2007; 177: 1195-8.
34. Winckler JA, Ramos JG, Dalmolin BM, et al. Comparative study of polypropylene and aponeurotic slings in the treatment of female urinary incontinence. Int Braz J Urol 2010; 36: 339-47.
35. de TR, Gervaise A, Chauveaud A, et al. Tension-free polypropylene mesh for vaginal repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. J Reprod Med 2005; 50: 75-80.
36. Argirovic RB, Gudovic AM, Babovic IR, et al. Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse with polypropylene mesh using a tension-free technique. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 153: 104-7.
37. Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, et al. Vaginal mesh for prolapse: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 293-303.
38. Tate SB, Blackwell L, Lorenz DJ, et al. Randomized trial of fascia lata and polypropylene mesh for abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 5-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2010; 22: 137-43.
39. Giri SK, Hickey JP, Sil D, et al. The long-term results of pubovaginal sling surgery using acellular cross-linked porcine dermis in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence. J Urol 2006; 175: 1788-92.
40. Natale F, La PC, Padoa A, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing Gynemesh, a synthetic mesh, and Pelvicol, a biologic graft, in the surgical treatment of recurrent cystocele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009; 20: 75-81.
41. Dell JR, O'Kelley KR,. PelviSoft BioMesh augmentation of rectocele repair: The initial clinical experience in 35 patients. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2005; 16: 44-7.
42. O'Reilly KJ, Govier FE,. Intermediate term failure of pubovaginal slings using cadaveric fascia lata: A case series. J Urol 2002; 167: 1356-8.
43. Fitzgerald MP, Edwards SR, Fenner D,. Medium-term follow-up on use of freeze-dried, irradiated donor fascia for sacrocolpopexy and sling procedures. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2004; 15: 238-42.
44. Flynn MK, Webster GD, Amundsen CL,. Abdominal sacral colpopexy with allograft fascia lata: One-year outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1496-500.
45. Clemons JL, Myers DL, Aguilar VC, et al. Vaginal paravaginal repair with an AlloDerm graft. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 1612-8.
46. Drake NL, Weidner AC, Webster GD, et al. Patient characteristics and management of dermal allograft extrusions. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2005; 16: 375-7.
47. Frederick RW, Leach GE,. Cadaveric prolapse repair with sling: Intermediate outcomes with 6 months to 5 years of followup. J Urol 2005; 173: 1229-33.
48. Hunt JA, Abrams KR, Williams DF,. Modelling the pattern of cell distribution around implanted materials. Anal Cell Pathol 1994; 7: 43-52.
49. Morehead JM, Holt GR,. Soft-tissue response to synthetic biomaterials. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1994; 27: 195-201.
50. Matthews BD, Pratt BL, Pollinger HS, et al. Assessment of adhesion formation to intra-abdominal polypropylene mesh and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. J Surg Res 2003; 114: 126-32.
51. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Birkenhauer V, et al. Impact of polymer pore size on the interface scar formation in a rat model. J Surg Res 2002; 103: 208-14.
52. Woodruff AJ, Cole EE, Dmochowski RR, et al. Histologic comparison of pubovaginal sling graft materials: A comparative study. Urology 2008; 72: 85-9.
53. Carbone JM, Kavaler E, Hu JC, et al. Pubovaginal sling using cadaveric fascia and bone anchors: Disappointing early results. J Urol 2001; 165: 1605-11.
54. Fitzgerald MP, Mollenhauer J, Brubaker L,. The fate of rectus fascia suburethral slings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 964-6.
55. Gandhi S, Kubba LM, Abramov Y, et al. Histopathologic changes of porcine dermis xenografts for transvaginal suburethral slings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1643-8.