title: Does the design of mini slings anchoring systems really matter? A biomechanical comparison between Mini Arc™ and Ophira™.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Currently, a sling implant is the standard treatment for stress urinary incontinence in women. To be effective, they require an adequate anchoring system. The aim of this study is compare biomechanical features of fixation systems of two mini slings models available on the market (Ophira™ and Mini Arc™) through a tensile test.
  
  
  METHODS
  Anchoring devices of each sling were surgically implanted in abdominal wall of 15 rats divided into three groups of five animals which were arranged according to the date of post implant euthanasia on 7, 14 and 30 days. Abdominal walls of rats were extracted on bloc containing the anchoring system and were submitted to a tensile strength test to measure the maximum load and elongation until device avulsion from the tissue. The results were compared using Student test t and a 5% cut off was considered significant.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The Ophira™ mini sling fixation system demanded a greater maximum load and developed a longer stretch for avulsion from the implanted site at all moments evaluated (p value less than 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There were significant differences in fixation patterns of the anchoring systems, which were exclusively related to their designs. The Ophira™ mini sling fixation device provided better fixation to the abdominal wall of rats compared to the Mini Arc™ device, even in the late post implant period.
authors.affiliation: División de Urología, Departamento de Cirugía, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Campinas-UNICAMP, Campinas-SP, Brasil.
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Santos-Souza
authors.affiliation: División de Urología, Departamento de Cirugía, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Campinas-UNICAMP, Campinas-SP, Brasil.
authors.forename: P C
authors.initials: PC
authors.lastname: Rodrigues-Palma
authors.affiliation: División de Urología, Departamento de Cirugía, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Campinas-UNICAMP, Campinas-SP, Brasil.
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Goulart-Fernandes-Dias
authors.affiliation: División of Urología, Facultad de Medicina de Itajubá-FMIt, Itajubá-MG, Brasil.
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Teixeira-Siniscalchi
authors.affiliation: División de Urología, Departamento de Cirugía, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Campinas-UNICAMP, Campinas-SP, Brasil. Electronic address: cassioriccetto@gmail.com.
authors.forename: C L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Zanettini-Riccetto
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D005260:Female; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D051381:Rats; D017208:Rats, Wistar; D053825:Suburethral Slings; D053441:Suture Anchors; D013718:Tensile Strength
keywords: Alargamiento; Anchoring system; Biomechanics; Biomecánica; Carga máxima; Design; Diseño; Elongation; Ensayo de tracción; Fijación; Fixation; Incontinencia urinaria de esfuerzo; Maximum load; Mini cabestrillo; Mini sling; Sistema de anclaje; Stress urinary incontinence; Tensile test