Vagina, abdominal skin, and aponeurosis: do they have similar biomechanical properties?
OBJECTIVE
despite minimal fundamental works, there is an increasing use of meshes in urogynecology. The concept is mainly based on experiences with abdominal wall surgery. We aimed to compare the biomechanical properties of vaginal tissue, abdominal aponeurosis, and skin.


METHODS
samples from 11 fresh women cadavers without prolapse were collected. Uniaxial tension tests were performed and stress-strain curves were obtained.


RESULTS
biomechanical properties of the vagina, aponeurosis, and skin differed significantly. The aponeurosis was much more rigid and less extendible than the vagina and skin. Vaginal tissue was less rigid but more extendible than skin. There was no difference between the vagina and skin at low strains (p = 0.341), but a highly significant difference at large strains (p = 0.005).


CONCLUSIONS
skin and aponeurosis are not suited to predict vaginal tissue biomechanics. We should be cautious when transferring experiences from abdominal wall surgery to vaginal reconstructive surgery.
Gabriel
Boris
B
Clinique de chirurgie gynécologique, Hopital Jeanne de Flandre, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire de Lille, 2, av. Oscar Lambret, 59037 Lille Cedex, France. boris.gabriel@uniklinik-freiburg.de
Rubod
Chrystèle
C
Brieu
Mathias
M
Dedet
Bruno
B
de Landsheere
Laurent
L
Delmas
Vincent
V
Cosson
Michel
M
D000005:Abdomen; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D002102:Cadaver; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D056887:Pelvic Organ Prolapse / Q000503:physiopathology; D012879:Skin Physiological Phenomena; D013710:Tendons / Q000502:physiology*; D014621:Vagina / Q000502:physiology*
Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2009;11(3):27-33
20131747
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;185(6):1388-95
11744914
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009 Apr;20(4):461-74
18854909
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Dec;19(12):1677-81
18762850
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Jun;18(6):603-7
17024520
Ann Surg. 1987 Dec;206(6):765-9
3689012
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005 Nov-Dec;16(6):475-9
15846454
Med Eng Phys. 1998 Jun;20(4):308-14
9728682
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006 Sep;17(5):478-82
16341461
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Feb 10;112(2):201-5
14746960
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2010 Jun;13(3):327-37
20146131
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Jul;19(7):977-86
18265927
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Mar;19(3):375-80
17846702
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003 Oct;14(4):239-43; discussion 243
14530834
J Surg Res. 2001 Feb;95(2):107-13
11162033
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jun;184(7):1496-501; discussion 1501-3
11408873
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Jun;19(6):811-6
18188492
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2002;13(2):76-9; discussion 79
12054186
J Urol. 2007 Jul;178(1):320-5; discussion 325
17499792
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2003 Jun;32(4):329-37
12843881
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Jan;19(1):65-71
17522755
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003 Aug;14(3):169-78; discussion 178
12955338