Fixation of the Ajust minisling based upon cadaveric study
Language English Country Great Britain, England Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Embalming MeSH
- Dissection MeSH
- Prosthesis Implantation methods MeSH
- Cryopreservation MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Cadaver MeSH
- Obturator Nerve anatomy & histology MeSH
- Pelvis anatomy & histology MeSH
- Patient Positioning MeSH
- Prosthesis Retention * MeSH
- Suburethral Slings * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to describe the fixation site of the anchor of the Ajust mid-urethral minisling. METHODS: This cadaveric study was based on a group of 11 formalin-embalmed bodies with legs positioned in 30° flexion and 30° abduction, and a group of five fresh-frozen bodies with legs positioned as normal during the procedure. The groups were later compared. The fixation site was dissected and described. The distance to the obturator bundle was considered as the primary safety parameter. To compare the groups of fresh-frozen bodies and formalin-embalmed bodies, the Student's t test and Mann-Whitney test were used. RESULTS: In the group of formalin-embalmed bodies the mean distance from the anchoring device to the obturator nerve was 4.23 cm. In 19 cases out of 22 the anchor was within the complex of the obturator membrane and obturator muscles. In the group of fresh frozen bodies the mean distance to the obturator nerve was 3.15 cm. In 9 cases out of 10 the anchor was in the complex of the obturator membrane and obturator muscles. CONCLUSION: The distance from the anchor to the obturator nerve was more than 2 cm in all cases. Correct placement in the obturator membrane was achieved in 65.6 % of cases. In 87.5 % of cases the anchor was placed within the complex of obturator membrane and obturator muscles.
See more in PubMed
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009 Mar;20(3):363-5 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Aug;23(8):1075-80 PubMed
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008 Feb;277(2):161-4 PubMed
Eur Urol. 2010 Jul;58(1):157-61 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Oct;18(10):1201-6 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Jul;21(7):779-85 PubMed
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 Oct;284(4):901-5 PubMed
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;198(5):546.e1-4 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Nov;18(11):1257-61 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009 Jun;20(6):681-8 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Jul;22(7):781-7 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009 Jan;20(1):125 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Nov;19(11):1581-3 PubMed
J Urol. 2011 Apr;185(4):1356-62 PubMed
Eur Urol. 2011 Jun;59(6):940-4 PubMed
BJU Int. 2012 Mar;109(6):880-6 PubMed
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 Dec;111(3):233-6 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Sep;21(9):1175-7 PubMed
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2009 Jun;38(4):299-303 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Apr;22(4):443-5 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Feb;22(2):241-6 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Sep;21(9):1179-80 PubMed
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2001 Nov-Dec;26(6):576-81 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Oct;23(10):1403-12 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Aug;22(8):1005-9 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Nov;18(11):1371-3 PubMed
What is the optimal length for single-incision tape?
