Sheep as an experimental model in the reaserch of effects of pregnancy, delivery and surgical procedures on the pelvic floor
Authors:
I. Urbánková; L. Hympánová; L. Krofta
Authors‘ workplace:
Ústav pro péči o matku a dítě a 3. LF UK, Praha, ředitel doc. MUDr. J. Feyereisl, CSc.
Published in:
Ceska Gynekol 2017; 82(1): 54-58
Overview
Objective:
A short literature review of ewe as an experimental model in research of effects of pregnancy, delivery and urogynecological surgical procedures on the pelvic floor.
Design:
Literature overview.
Setting:
Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Third Faculty of Medicine, Prague.
Methods:
This is an overview of recent literature on experiments using ewes as a model for biomechanical and morphological changes of the vagina induced by pregnancy, delivery and transvaginal graft implantation.
Results and conclusion:
The ovine pelvic floor and vagina have comparable morphology to human. It’s biomechanical and biochemical properties get changed during the pregnancy and postpartum similarly to clinical findings. Sheep could be used for testing of urogynaecological implants vaginally and simultaneously implanted in the abdominal wall to provide better understanding of anatomical environment differences. The size of the ovine vagina gives the opportunity to perform comprehensive biomechanical, histological and biochemical testing. Experiments and observation may improve our understanding of pathology and physiology of vaginal wall changes induced by hormones, prolapse or surgery.
Keywords:
pelvic floor, sheep, effects of pregnancy and delivery
Sources
1. Ashton-Miller, JA., Delancey, JOL. On the biomechanics of vaginal birth and common sequelae. Anl Revi biomed Engineering, 2009, 11, 20, p. 163–176.
2. Callewaert, G., Albersen, M., Janssen, K., et al. The impact of vaginal delivery on pelvic floor function - delivery as a time point for secondary prevention: A commentary. BJOG, 2015, 123, 5, p. 678–681.
3. Couri, B., Lenis, A., Borazjani, A., et al. Animal models of female pelvic organ prolapse: lessons learned. Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 7, 3, p. 249–260.
4. DeLancey, JOL., Kane Low, L., Miller, JM., et al. Graphic integration of causal factors of pelvic floor disorders: an integrated life span model. AJOG, 2008, 199, 6, p. 610.e1–5.
5. van Delft, K., Thakar, R., Sultan, A., et al. Levator ani muscle avulsion during childbirth: a risk prediction model. BJOG, 2014, 121, 9, p. 1–10.
6. Deprest, J., Zheng, F., Konstantinovic, M., et al. The biology behind fascial defects and the use of implants in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Intern Urogynecol J pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2006, 17 Suppl 1, p. S16-25.
7. Deprest, J., Feola, A. The need for preclinical research on pelvic floor reconstruction. BJOG, 2013, 120, 2, p. 141–143.
8. Dietz, H., Simpson, J. Levator trauma is associated with pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG, 2008, 115, 8, p. 979–984.
9. Dietz, HP., Chantarasorn, V., Shek, KL. Levator avulsion is a risk factor for cystocele recurrence. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 36, 1, p. 76–80.
10. Dietz, HP., Lanzarone, V. Levator trauma after vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynec, 2005, 106, 4, p. 707–712.
11. Endo, M., Urbankova, I., Vlacil, J., et al. Cross-linked xenogenic collagen implantation in the sheep model for vaginal surgery. Gynecol Surg, 2015, 12, 2, p. 113–122.
12. Ennen, S., Kloss, S., Scheiner-Bobis, G., et al. Histological, hormonal and biomolecular analysis of the pathogenesis of ovine Prolapsus vaginae ante partum. Theriogenology, 2011, 75, 2, p. 212–219.
13. FDA [online]. 2011. Dostupné na internetu: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm>.
14. Feola, A., Endo, M., Urbankova, I., et al. Host reaction to vaginally inserted collagen containing polypropylene implants in sheep. Amer J Obstet Gynecol, 2015, 212, 4, p. 474.e1–474.e8.
15. Gabriel, B., Rubod, C., Brieu, M. Vagina, Abdominal skin, and aponeurosis: do they have similar biomechanical properties? Int Urogynecology J, 2011, 22, 1, p. 23–27.
16. Gyhagen, M., Akervall, S., Milsom, I. Clustering of pelvic floor disorders 20 years after one vaginal or one cesarean birth. I Urogynecol J, 2015, 26, 8, p. 1118-1121.
17. Hayen, B., Freeman, R., Lee, J., et al. International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related to native tissue female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J, 2012, 23, 5, p. 515–526.
18. Herschorn, S. The use of biological and synthetic materials in vaginal surgery for prolapse. Curr Opin Urol, 2007, 17, 6, p. 408–414.
19. Jing, D., Ashton-Miller, JA., DeLancey, JOL. A subject-specific anisotropic visco-hyperelastic finite element model of female pelvic floor stress and strain during the second stage of labor. J Biomechanics, 2012, 45, 3, p. 455–460.
20. Keys, T., Campeau, L., Badlani, G. Synthetic mesh in the surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse: current status and future directions. Urology, 2012, 80, 2, p. 237–243.
21. Krause, H., Goh, J. Sheep and rabbit genital tracts and abdominal wall as an implantation model for the study of surgical mesh. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2009, 35, 2, p. 219–224.
22. Law, YM. Fielding, JR. MRI of pelvic floor dysfunction: Review. Amer J Roentgenol, 2008, 191, 6 suppl., p. 45–53.
23. Liang, R., Zong, W., Palcsey, S., et al. Impact of prolapse meshes on the metabolism of vaginal extracellular matrix in rhesus macaque. AJOG, 2014, 212, 2, p. 174.e1–174.e7.
24. Liang, R., Abramowitch, S., Knight, K., et al. Vaginal degeneration following implantation of synthetic mesh with increased stiffness. BJOG, 2013, 120, 2, p. 233–243.
25. Manodoro, S., Endo, M., Uvin, P., et al. Graft-related complications and biaxial tensiometry following experimental vaginal implantation of flat mesh of variable dimensions. BJOG, 2013, 120, 2, p. 244–250.
26. Medina, CA., Costantini, E., Petri, E., et al. Evaluation and surgery for stress urinary incontinence: A FIGO working group report. Neurourol Urodynamics, 2016, 34, 3, p. n/a-n/ad
27. Ostergard, DR. Degradation, infection and heat effects on polypropylene mesh for pelvic implantation: What was known and when it was known. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2011, 22, 7, p. 771–774.
28. Reinier, M., Groep, G. Final Opinion on the use of meshes in urogynecological surgery (SCENIHR - European Commission), 2016, doi ISBN 9789279439179.
29. Riccetto, CLZ., Palma, PCR., Thiel, M., et al. Experimental animal model for training transobturator and retropubic sling techniques. Urologia Internation, 2007, 78, 2, p. 130–134.
30. Rubod, C., Brieu, M., Cosson, M., et al. Biomechanical properties of human pelvic organs. Urology, 2012, 79, 4, p. 968.e17-22.
31. Rubod, C., Boukerrou, M., Brieu, M., et al. Biomechanical properties of vaginal tissue. Part 1: new experimental protocol. J Urol, 2007, 178, 1, p. 320–325; discussion 325.
32. Scott, PR., Gessert, ME. Ultrasonographic examination of 12 ovine vaginal prolapses. Veterinary J., 1998, Table I, p. 323–324.
33. Slack, M., Ostergard, D., Cervigni, M., et al. A standardized description of graft-containing meshes and recommended steps before the introduction of medical devices for prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecology J, 2012, 23, suppl. 1, p. S15–26.
34. de Tayrac, R., Alves, A., Thérin, M. Collagen-coated vs noncoated low-weight polypropylene meshes in a sheep model for vaginal surgery. A pilot study. Intern Urogynecol J pelvic Floor Gysfunc, 2007, 18, 5, p. 513–520.
35. Tunn, R., DeLancey, JOL., Howard, D., et al. Anatomic variations in the levator ani muscle, endopelvic fascia, and urethra in nulliparas evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging. AJOG, 2003, 188, 1, p. 116–121.
36. Ulrich, D., Edwards, SL., Su, K., et al. Influence of reproductive status on tissue composition and biomechanical properties of ovine vagina. PloS one, 2014, 9, 4, p. e93172.
37. Ulrich, D., Edwards, SL., Letouzey, V., et al. Regional variation in tissue composition and biomechanical properties of postmenopausal ovine and human vagina. PLoS one, 2014, 9, 8, p. e104972.
38. Vincent, KL., Bourne, N., Bell, AB., et al. High resolution imaging of epithelial injury in the sheep cervicovaginal tract: a promising model for testing safety of candidate micorobicedes. Sex Transm Dis, 2009, 36, 5, p. 312–318.
39. Vincent, KL., Vargas, G., Wei, J., et al. Monitoring vaginal epithelial thickness changes noninvasively in sheep using optical coherence tomography. AJOG, 2013, 208, 4, p. 282.e1-282.e7.
Labels
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineArticle was published in
Czech Gynaecology
2017 Issue 1
Most read in this issue
-
Comparison of vaginal use of micronized progesterone for the luteal support.
Randomized study comparison of Utrogestan and Crinone 8% - Sheep as an experimental model in the reaserch of effects of pregnancy, delivery and surgical procedures on the pelvic floor
- Are risk factors in prenatal and perinatal period important for develompent of schizophrenia?
- Current state of transvaginal meshes by resolution of pelvic organ prolapse