Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative analysis of pelvic ligaments: a biomechanics study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects one third of women of all ages and is a major concern for gynecological surgeons. In pelvic reconstructive surgery, native ligaments are widely used as a corrective support, while their biomechanical properties are unknown. We hypothesized differences in the strength of various pelvic ligaments and therefore, aimed to evaluate and compare their biomechanical properties.

Materials and methods

Samples from the left and right broad, round, and uterosacral ligaments from 13 fresh female cadavers without pelvic organ prolapse were collected. Uniaxial tension tests at a constant rate of deformation were performed and stress–strain curves were obtained.

Results

We observed a non-linear stress–strain relationship and a hyperelastic mechanical behavior of the tissues. The uterosacral ligaments were the most rigid whether at low or high deformation, while the round ligament was more rigid than the broad ligament.

Conclusion

Pelvic ligaments differ in their biomechanical properties and there is fairly good evidence that the uterosacral ligaments play an important role in the maintenance of pelvic support from a biomechanical point of view.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Samuelsson E, Victor F, Tibblin G, Svardsudd K (1999) Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:299–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark A (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dietz HP (2008) The aetiology of prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 19:1323–1329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Alperin M, Debes K, Abramowitch S, Meyn L, Moalli PA (2008) LOXL1 deficiency negatively impacts the biomechanical properties of the mouse vagina and supportive tissues. Int Urogynecol J 19:977–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Amundsen CL, Flynn BJ, Webster GD (2003) Anatomical correction of vaginal vault prolapse by uterosacral ligament fixation in women who also require a pubovaginal sling. J Urol 169:1770–1774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buller JL, Thompson JR, Cundiff GW, Krueger Sullivan L, Schon Ybarra MA, Bent AE (2001) Uterosacral ligament: description of anatomic relationships to optimize surgical safety. Obstet Gynecol 97:873–879

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, Kuehl TJ (2000) A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183(6):1365–1373

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. DeLancey JOL (1992) Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:1717–1724

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Jacquetin B (2007) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift technique)-a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J 18:743–752

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Conza NE, Rixen DJ, Plomp S (2007) Vibration testing of a fresh-frozen human pelvis: the role of pelvic ligaments. J Biomech 40:1599–1605

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cosson M, Boukerrou M, Lacaze S et al (2003) A study of pelvic ligament strength. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 109:80–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reay Jones NH, Healy JC, King LJ, Saini S, Shousha S, Allen-Mersh TG (2003) Pelvic connective tissue resilience decreases with vaginal delivery, menopause and uterine prolapse. Br J Surg 90:466–472

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Boukerrou M, Lambaudie E, Collinet P et al (2004) Mechanical resistance of pelvic ligaments used for incontinence or prolapse surgery. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 32:601–606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Vardy MD, Gardner TR, Cosman F et al (2005) The effects of hormone replacement on the biomechanical properties of the uterosacral and round ligaments in the monkey model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(5):1741–1751

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, Hsu Y, DeLancey JO (2006) Interaction among apical support, levator ani impairment, and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 108:324–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rubod C, Boukerrou M, Brieu M, Dubois P, Cosson M (2007) Biomechanical properties of vaginal tissue-Part 1: new experimental protocol. J Urol 178:320–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mooney M (1947) A theory of large elastic deformation. J Appl Phys 1940(11):582–592

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rivlin RS (1948) Large elastic deformations of isotropic materials. I. Fundamental concepts, II. Some uniqueness theorems for pure homogenous deformations. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A:Math Phys Sci A240:459–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Connell KA, Guess MK, Chen H, Andikyan V, Bercik R, Taylor HS (2008) HOXA11 is critical for development and maintenance of uterosacral ligaments and deficient in pelvic prolapse. J Clin Invest 118:1050–1055

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Blaisdell FE (1917) The anatomy of sacro-uterine ligaments. Anat Record 12:1–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ramanah R, Parratte B, Hubert N, Arbez-Gindre F, Maillet R, Riethmuller D (2009) Anatomical and histological study of the uterosacral ligament: practical surgical consequences. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 38(4):304–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gabriel B, Denschlag D, Göbel H et al (2005) Uterosacral ligament in postmenopausal women with or without pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 16:475–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gabriel B, Watermann D, Hancke K et al (2006) Increased expression of matrix metalloproteinase 2 in uterosacral ligaments is associated with pelvicorgan prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 17:478–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Goepel C (2008) Differential elastin and tenascin immunolabeling in the uterosacral ligaments in postmenopausal women with and without pelvic organ prolapse. Acta Histochem 110:204–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Moalli PA (2005) Remodeling of vaginal connective tissue in patients with prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 106:953–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Boreham MK, Miller RT, Schaffer JI, Word RA (2001) Smooth muscle myosin heavy chain and caldesmon expression in the anterior vaginal wall of women with and without pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:944–952

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gabriel B, Rubod C, Brieu M, Dedet B, De Landsheere L, Cosson M (2011) Vagina, abdominal skin and aponeurosis: do they have similar biomechanical properties ? Int Urogynecol J 22:23–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Martins P, Pena E, Calvo B, Doblaré M, Mascarenhas T, Natal Jorge R, Ferreira A (2010) Prediction of nonlinear elastic behaviour of vaginal tissue: experimental results and model formulation. Comp Meth Biomech Biomed Eng 13:327–337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lei L, Song Y, Chen RQ (2007) Biomechanical properties of prolapsed vaginal tissue in pre- and postmenopausal women. Int Urogynecol J 18:603–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jean-Charles C, Rubod C, Boukerrou M, Brieu M, Dubois P, Cosson M (2010) Biomechanical properties of prolapsed or non prolapsed vaginal tissue: impact on genital prolapsed surgery. Int Urogynecol J 21:1535–1538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors announce unconditional financial support of the basic research by Ethicon Women’s Health & Urology. MS is a consultant of Ethicon Women’s Health & Urology. BG was awarded an International Fellowship grant by the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) in 2009, which partly funded this research project. We thank Patrick Devos for his help with the statistical analyses.

Conflicts of interest

Géraldine Rivaux, Chrystèle Rubot, Bruno Dedet, Mathias Brieu declare that they have no conflict of interest to declare. Boris Gabriel: Serag-Wiessner (acceptance of paid travel expenses and honoraria). Michel Cosson: consultant for Ethicon and AMS, acceptance of paid travel expenses and honoraria, acceptance of payment for research; teaching sessions for Ethicon and Ipsen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinique de chirurgie gynécologique, Hopital Jeanne de Flandre, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire de Lille, 2, avenue Oscar Lambret, 59037, Lille Cedex, France

    Géraldine Rivaux, Chrystèle Rubod, Bruno Dedet, Boris Gabriel & Michel Cosson

  2. Laboratoire de Mécanique de Lille, CNRS UMR 8107, Ecole Centrale de Lille, Université Nord de France, 59000, Lille, France

    Mathias Brieu

  3. INSERM U703, Lille, Université Nord de France, 59000, Lille, France

    Géraldine Rivaux, Chrystèle Rubod & Michel Cosson

  4. Universitäts-Frauenklinik Freiburg, Hugstetter Strasse 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Boris Gabriel

Authors
  1. Géraldine Rivaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chrystèle Rubod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Dedet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mathias Brieu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Boris Gabriel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michel Cosson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Chrystèle Rubod or Boris Gabriel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rivaux, G., Rubod, C., Dedet, B. et al. Comparative analysis of pelvic ligaments: a biomechanics study. Int Urogynecol J 24, 135–139 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1861-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1861-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation