title: 3D simulation of pelvic system numerical simulation for a better understanding of the contribution of the uterine ligaments.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Genital prolapse remains a complex pathological condition. Physiopathology remains poorly understood, aetiology is multi-factorial, surgery is not always satisfying, as the rate of relapse cannot be overlooked. More over a good anatomical result will not always guarantee functional satisfaction. The aim of our study is to have a better understanding of the involvement of uterine ligaments in pelvic statics via 3D simulation.
  
  
  METHODS
  Simulation of pelvic mobility is performed with a validated numerical model in a normal situation (standing up to lying down) or induced pathological ones where parts of the constitutive elements of the model are virtually "cut" independently. Displacements are then discussed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Numerical results have been compared with dynamic MRI for two volunteers. Dynamic sequences had 90 images, and 180 simulations have been validated. Results are coherent with clinical data and the literature, thus validating our mechanical approach. Uterine ligaments are involved in pelvic statics, but their lesions are not sufficient to generate a genital prolapse. Round ligaments play a part in uterine orientation; the utero-sacral ligaments support the uterus when standing up.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Pelvic normal and pathological mobility study via modelling and 3D simulation is a new strategy in understanding the complex multifactorial physiopathology of genital prolapse. This approach must be validated in a larger series of patients. Nevertheless, pelvic ligaments seem to play an important role in statics, especially, in agreement with a literature survey, utero-sacral ligaments in a standing position.
authors: Gynaecology Department, Jeanne de Flandre Hospital, CHRU LILLE-Lille Nord University, 59000, Lille, France, chrystele.rubod@chru-lille.fr.
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Rubod
authors: P
authors: P
authors: Lecomte-Grosbras
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Brieu
authors: G
authors: G
authors: Giraudet
authors: N
authors: N
authors: Betrouni
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Cosson
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;207(5):437.e1-7
references: 22999154
references: Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Apr;89(4):501-6
references: 9083302
references: J Biomech. 2010 Nov 16;43(15):2978-85
references: 20673669
references: Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Jan;22(1):23-7
references: 20798926
references: Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Dec;21(12):1535-8
references: 20838989
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):367-73
references: 19155908
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Aug;183(2):277-85
references: 10942459
references: Bull Acad Natl Med. 2011 Nov;195(8):1869-83; discussion 1883
references: 22844748
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Mar;103(3):447-51
references: 14990404
references: Urology. 2012 Apr;79(4):968.e17-22
references: 22245302
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 May;194(5):1438-43
references: 16579933
references: Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Jan;24(1):135-9
references: 22751993
references: Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Jan;23(1):29-34
references: 21725676
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Feb;180(2 Pt 1):299-305
references: 9988790
references: Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Jan;24(1):105-12
references: 22707008
references: Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Oct;15(5):391-4
references: 14501242
references: Tex Med. 1968 May;64(5):56-8
references: 5653447
references: Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2010 Jun;13(3):349-57
references: 20099169