Three-dimensional Analysis of Implanted Magnetic-resonance-visible Meshes

Overview

Journal Int Urogynecol J

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Urology

Date 2015 Mar 25

PMID 25800904

Citations 3

Authors

Nikhil Sindhwani

Andrew Feola

Frederik De Keyzer

Filip Claus

Geertje Callewaert

Iva Urbankova

Sebastien Ourselin

Jan Dhooge

Jan Deprest

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Our primary objective was to develop relevant algorithms for quantification of mesh position and 3D shape in magnetic resonance (MR) images.

Methods: In this proof-of-principle study, one patient with severe anterior vaginal wall prolapse was implanted with an MR-visible mesh. High-resolution MR images of the pelvis were acquired 6 weeks and 8 months postsurgery. 3D models were created using semiautomatic segmentation techniques. Conformational changes were recorded quantitatively using part-comparison analysis. An ellipticity measure is proposed to record longitudinal conformational changes in the mesh arms. The surface that is the effective reinforcement provided by the mesh is calculated using a novel methodology. The area of this surface is the effective support area (ESA).

Results: MR-visible mesh was clearly outlined in the images, which allowed us to longitudinally quantify mesh configuration between 6 weeks and 8 months after implantation. No significant changes were found in mesh position, effective support area, conformation of the mesh's main body, and arm length during the period of observation. Ellipticity profiles show longitudinal conformational changes in posterior arms.

Conclusions: This paper proposes novel methodologies for a systematic 3D assessment of the position and morphology of MR-visible meshes. A novel semiautomatic tool was developed to calculate the effective area of support provided by the mesh, a potentially clinically important parameter.

Citing Articles

3D reconstruction of MR-visible Fe O -mesh implants: Pelvic mesh measurement techniques and preliminary findings.

Brocker K, Mokry T, Alt C, Kauczor H, Lenz F, Sohn C Neurourol Urodyn. 2018; 38(1):369-378.

PMID: 30387537 PMC: 6374778. DOI: 10.1002/nau.23868.

Ultrasound visualization of sacrocolpopexy polyvinylidene fluoride meshes containing paramagnetic Fe particles compared with polypropylene mesh.

Eisenberg V, Callewaert G, Sindhwani N, Housmans S, Van Schoubroeck D, Lowenstein L Int Urogynecol J. 2018; 30(5):795-804.

PMID: 30083941 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3728-x.

MRI visible FeO polypropylene mesh: 3D reconstruction of spatial relation to bony pelvis and neurovascular structures.

Chen L, Lenz F, Alt C, Sohn C, De Lancey J, Brocker K Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28(8):1131-1138.

PMID: 28124074 PMC: 6085093. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3263-1.

References

Jacquetin B, Cosson M . Complications of vaginal mesh: our experience. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009; 20(8):893-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-009-0926-6. View

Kuehnert N, Kraemer N, Otto J, Donker H, Slabu I, Baumann M . In vivo MRI visualization of mesh shrinkage using surgical implants loaded with superparamagnetic iron oxides. Surg Endosc. 2011; 26(5):1468-75. PMC: 3327833. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2057-7. View

Mangera A, Bullock A, Chapple C, MacNeil S . Are biomechanical properties predictive of the success of prostheses used in stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse? A systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011; 31(1):13-21. DOI: 10.1002/nau.21156. View

Schoenmaeckers E, van der Valk S, van den Hout H, Raymakers J, Rakic S . Computed tomographic measurements of mesh shrinkage after laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. Surg Endosc. 2009; 23(7):1620-3. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0500-9. View

Gerullis H, Klosterhalfen B, Boros M, Lammers B, Eimer C, Georgas E . IDEAL in meshes for prolapse, urinary incontinence, and hernia repair. Surg Innov. 2013; 20(5):502-8. DOI: 10.1177/1553350612472987. View

Smith F, Holman C, Moorin R, Tsokos N . Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116(5):1096-100. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73729. View

Kramer N, Donker H, Otto J, Hodenius M, Senegas J, Slabu I . A concept for magnetic resonance visualization of surgical textile implants. Invest Radiol. 2010; 45(8):477-83. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181e53e38. View

Jakus S, Shapiro A, Hall C . Biologic and synthetic graft use in pelvic surgery: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2008; 63(4):253-66. DOI: 10.1097/OGX.0b013e318166fb44. View

Palma P, Riccetto C, Fraga R, Miyaoka R, Prando A . Dynamic evaluation of pelvic floor reconstructive surgery using radiopaque meshes and three-dimensional helical CT. Int Braz J Urol. 2010; 36(2):209-14. DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382010000200012. View

10.

Svabik K, Martan A, Masata J, El-Haddad R, Hubka P, Pavlikova M . Ultrasound appearances after mesh implantation--evidence of mesh contraction or folding?. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 22(5):529-33. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1308-9. View

11.

Kraemer N, Donker H, Kuehnert N, Otto J, Schrading S, Krombach G . In vivo visualization of polymer-based mesh implants using conventional magnetic resonance imaging and positive-contrast susceptibility imaging. Invest Radiol. 2013; 48(4):200-5. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31827efd14. View

12.

Shapiro E, Skrtic S, Koretsky A . Sizing it up: cellular MRI using micron-sized iron oxide particles. Magn Reson Med. 2005; 53(2):329-38. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.20342. View

13.

Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Hermanns B, Schumpelick V . [Pathology of traditional surgical nets for hernia repair after long-term implantation in humans]. Chirurg. 2000; 71(1):43-51. DOI: 10.1007/s001040050007. View

14.

Endo M, Feola A, Sindhwani N, Manodoro S, Vlacil J, Engels A . Mesh contraction: in vivo documentation of changes in apparent surface area utilizing meshes visible on magnetic resonance imaging in the rabbit abdominal wall model. Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25(6):737-43. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2293-6. View

15.

Alizai P, Schmid S, Otto J, Klink C, Roeth A, Nolting J . Biomechanical analyses of prosthetic mesh repair in a hiatal hernia model. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2014; 102(7):1485-95. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.33128. View

16.

Abed H, Rahn D, Lowenstein L, Balk E, Clemons J, Rogers R . Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22(7):789-98. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1384-5. View

17.

Smajda S, Vanormelingen L, Vandewalle G, Ombelet W, de Jonge E, Hinoul P . Translevator posterior intravaginal slingplasty: anatomical landmarks and safety margins. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005; 16(5):364-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-004-1264-3. View

18.

Li W, Wu B, Avram A, Liu C . Magnetic susceptibility anisotropy of human brain in vivo and its molecular underpinnings. Neuroimage. 2011; 59(3):2088-97. PMC: 3254777. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.038. View

19.

Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Ottinger A, Junge K, Schumpelick V . PVDF as a new polymer for the construction of surgical meshes. Biomaterials. 2002; 23(16):3487-93. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(02)00070-4. View

20.

Yurteri-Kaplan L, Gutman R . The use of biological materials in urogynecologic reconstruction: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012; 130(5 Suppl 2):242S-253S. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31826154e4. View