International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 499–506 | Cite as

Calculation of membrane tension in selected sections of the pelvic floor

  • Yves Ozog
  • Jan Deprest
  • Kim Haest
  • Filip Claus
  • Dirk De Ridder
  • Edoardo Mazza
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

A mathematical model to estimate membrane tensions (Mt) at the urogenital hiatus and midpelvis in patients with and without prolapse is proposed. For that purpose the complex structures of the pelvic floor were simplified and, based on assumptions concerning geometry and loading conditions, Laplace’s law was used to calculate Mt. The pelvic cavity is represented by an ellipsoid in which the midpelvic and hiatal sections are described by an ellipse. The downwards forces within the pelvis (Fin) are in equilibrium with the support forces within its walls (Fw). Fin is the abdominal pressure (PABD) multiplied by the area A of the ellipse. The force inside the tissues (Fw) is distributed along the circumference of the ellipse C. The Mt can be approximated as Mt = (PABD.A)/C (N/m). Mt-α accounts for the angle α which describes tissue orientation with respect to the anatomical section and is calculated as Mt-α = Mt/sin(α).


We conducted a retrospective study on archived magnetic resonance imaging scans (n = 20) and ultrasound images in patients with (n = 50) or without prolapse (n = 50) and measured actual geometrical variables. PABD was measured in patients with and without prolapse (n = 20).


Mt at the urogenital hiatus at rest is 0.35 N/cm. They significantly increase with the Valsalva manoeuvre, by a factor of 2.3 (without prolapse) to 3.6 (with prolapse).


Calculated Mt are much lower than what is reported for the abdominal cavity. Prolapse patients have significantly larger Mt, which during the Valsalva manoeuvre increase more than in healthy subjects.


Laplace’s law Mathematical model Membrane tension Pelvic organ prolapse 


  1. 1.
    Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE et al (2010) Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 116:1096–1100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diez-Itza I, Aizpitarte I, Becerro A (2007) Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery: a review at 5 years after surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:1317–1324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U (2005) The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2:103–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, MacLennan G, Bain C, Fraser C et al (2008) Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 115:1350–1361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C et al (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364:1826–1836Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L et al (2011) Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 22:789–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S (2008) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn 27:3–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epstein LB, Graham CA, Heit MH (2007) Systemic and vaginal biomechanical properties of women with normal vaginal support and pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:165.e1–165.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klinge U, Conze J, Limberg W, Brücker C, Ottinger AP, Schumpelick V (1996) Pathophysiology of the abdominal wall. Chirurg 67:229–233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramanujan S (1913–1914) Modular equations and approximations to pi. Quart J Pure Appl Math 45:350–372Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bernstein IT (1997) The pelvic floor muscles: muscle thickness in healthy and urinary-incontinent women measured by perineal ultrasonography with reference to the effect of pelvic floor training. Estrogen receptor studies. Neurourol Urodyn 16:237–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abramowitch SD, Feola A, Jallah Z, Moalli PA (2009) Tissue mechanics, animal models, and pelvic organ prolapse: a review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144(Suppl 1):S146–S158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J et al (2011) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn 30:2–12Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steensma AB, Konstantinovic ML, Burger CW, de Ridder D, Timmerman D, Deprest J (2010) Prevalence of major levator abnormalities in symptomatic patients with an underactive pelvic floor contraction. Int Urogynecol J 21:861–7Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cobb WS, Burns JM, Kercher KW et al (2005) Normal intraabdominal pressure in healthy adults. J Surg Res 129:231–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dietz HP, Simpson JM (2008) Levator trauma is associated with pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG 115:979–984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA et al (2004) Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1533–1538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alcalay M, Monga A, Stanton SL (1995) Burch colposuspension: a 10–20 year follow up. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 102:740–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ozog Y, Konstantinovic ML, Werbrouck E, De Ridder D, Mazza E, Deprest J (2011) Persistence of polypropylene mesh anisotropy after implantation: an experimental study. BJOG 118(10):1180–1185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ozog Y, Konstantinovic ML, Werbrouck E, De Ridder D, Edoardo M, Deprest J (2011) Shrinkage and biomechanical evaluation of lightweight synthetics in a rabbit model for primary fascial repair. Int Urogynecol J 22:1099–1108Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yves Ozog
    • 1
  • Jan Deprest
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
  • Kim Haest
    • 2
    • 3
  • Filip Claus
    • 4
  • Dirk De Ridder
    • 2
    • 3
  • Edoardo Mazza
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of MedicineKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Pelvic Floor UnitUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of MedicineLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Medical ImagingUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of TechnologyZurich and EMPA Materials Science and TechnologyDübendorfSwitzerland
  6. 6.Clinical Department Woman and Child, Division WomanUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations