The biomechanical mechanism between genital hiatus (GH), intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is currently unclear. Therefore, two biomechanical models for comparative analysis are developed to discuss the biomechanical relations of IAP and GH with prolapse of anterior and posterior vaginal walls (AVW and PVW) in the injured pelvic floor system. Based on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvic floor of a healthy woman, we developed two 2D finite element models by using mechanical equivalence to represent the physiological and pathological states respectively. Both models contain hollow structure rectum. We simulated biomechanical characteristics of POP progression under different IAP and GH values in the PVW injury. In the pathological state with an IAP of 83.9 cmH2O, the descending displacement of the cervix increased from 14.3 to 20.9 mm when the GH increased from 10 to 40 mm. The maximum stress of AVW and perineal body (PB) rose from 0.343 to 0.611 MPa, from 0.190 to 0.974 MPa, respectively. Compared with the physiological state, the initial GH is a significant influence on POP progression. The increase of GH leads to a reduction or loss of biomechanical support for the bladder. The influence of IAPs and GH interaction exacerbates the injury and mechanical imbalance in the pathological state, which triggers increased stress in the AVW and PB, the descending displacements of the cervix and PVM, and exacerbates POP progression.
OrlickyDJGuessMKBalesES, et al. Using the novel pelvic organ prolapse histologic quantification system to identify phenotypes in uterosacral ligaments in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol2021; 224(1): 67.e1–67.e18.
2.
DeLanceyJO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol1992; 166(6 Pt 1): 1717–1724.
3.
LiZXuTLiZ, et al. An epidemiologic study of pelvic organ prolapse in rural Chinese women: a population-based sample in China. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct2019; 30(11): 1925–1932.
4.
FieldingJRDumanliHSchreyerAG, et al. MR-based three-dimensional modeling of the normal pelvic floor in women: quantification of muscle mass. Am J Roentgenol2000; 174(3): 657–660.
5.
MayeurOWitzJFLecomteP, et al. Influence of geometry and mechanical properties on the accuracy of patient-specific simulation of women pelvic floor. Ann Biomed Eng2016; 44(1): 202–212.
6.
XieJLiSYaoT, et al. A 2D equivalent mechanical model of the whole pelvic floor and impairment simulation. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng2023; 39(1): e3659.
7.
XueXWangHXieJ, et al. Two-dimensional biomechanical finite element modeling of the pelvic floor and prolapse. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2023; 22(4): 1425–1446.
8.
XueXZhengQGaoZ, et al. The influence of the combined impairments and apical mesh surgery on the biomechanical behavior of the pelvic floor system. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2023; 11: 1292407.
9.
DeLanceyJOMastrovitoSMastelingM, et al. A unified pelvic floor conceptual model for studying morphological changes with prolapse, age, and parity. Am J Obstet Gynecol2024; 230(5): 476–484.e2.
10.
MemonHHandaVL. Pelvic floor disorders following vaginal or cesarean delivery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol2012; 24(5): 349–354.
11.
SilvaMETDPinheiroFATFerreiraNM, et al. An estimation of the biomechanical properties of the continent and incontinent woman bladder via inverse finite element analysis. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2024; 238(6): 598–607.
12.
LowderJLOliphantSSShepherdJP, et al. Genital hiatus size is associated with and predictive of apical vaginal support loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol2016; 214(6): 718.e1–718.e8.
13.
ChenLAshton-MillerJAHsuY, et al. Interaction among apical support, levator ani impairment, and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol2006; 108(2): 324–332.
14.
LuoJLarsonKAFennerDE, et al. Posterior vaginal prolapse shape and position changes at maximal valsalva seen in 3-D MRI-based models. Int Urogynecol J2012; 23(9): 1301–1306.
15.
LuoJJ. Biomechanical analyses of posterior vaginal prolapse: MR imaging and computer modeling studies. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, 2018.
16.
LuoJChenLFennerDE, et al. A multi-compartment 3-D finite element model of rectocele and its interaction with cystocele. J Biomech2015; 48(9): 1580–1586.
17.
QiuZSongYFengY. A hypothesis generating the mechanical systems underlying posterior vaginal prolapse based on observed displacements by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Female Pelvic Med Reconstruct Surg2020; 26(9): 585–590.
18.
SiahkalSFIravaniMMohagheghZ, et al. Investigating the association of the dimensions of genital hiatus and levator hiatus with pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J2021; 32(8): 2095–2109.
19.
CobbWSBurnsJMKercherKW, et al. Normal intraabdominal pressure in healthy adults. J Surg Res2005; 129(2): 231–235.
20.
LuoJJCorneliaBChenLY. Using stress MRI to analyze the 3D changes in apical ligament geometry from rest to maximal valsalva: a pilot study. Int Urogynecol J2014; 25(2): 197–203.
21.
LafondCHohnadelLBrunelT, et al. Biomechanical finite element simulation of the pelvic organs under dynamic loading and validation against experimental data from magnetic resonance imaging. Med Eng Phys2025; 146: 1350–4533.
22.
XuBLiHZhangYYH. An experimental and modeling study of the viscoelastic behavior of collagen gel. J Biomech Eng2013; 135(5): 54501.
23.
MartinsPALSJorgeRMNFerreiraAJM. A comparative study of several material models for prediction of hyperelastic properties: application to silicone-rubber and soft tissues. Strain2010; 42(3): 135–147.
24.
PeñaECalvoBMartínezMA, et al. Experimental study and constitutive modeling of the viscoelastic mechanical properties of the human prolapsed vaginal tissue. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2010; 9(1): 35–44.
25.
ChenZWJoliPFengZQ, et al. Female patient-specific finite element modeling of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). J Biomech2015; 48(2): 238–245.
26.
SilvaMETBessaJNMParenteMPL, et al. Effect of mesh anchoring technique in uterine prolapse repair surgery: a finite element analysis. J Biomech2021; 127: 110649.
27.
YangZHayesJKrishnamurtyS, et al. 3D finite element modeling of pelvic organ prolapse. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2016; 19(16): 1772–1784.
28.
DeLanceyJO. Structural anatomy of the posterior pelvic compartment as it relates to rectocele. Am J Obstet Gynecol1999; 180(4): 815–823.
29.
OblizajekNRGandhiSSharmaM, et al. Anorectal pressures measured with high-resolution manometry in healthy people-Normal values and asymptomatic pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurogastroenterol Motil2019; 31(7): e13597.
30.
HsuYSummersAHussainHK, et al. Levator plate angle in women with pelvic organ prolapse compared to women with normal support using dynamic MR imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol2006; 194(5): 1427–1433.
31.
LiSWenXGaoZ, et al. Comparison of the axes and positions of the uterus and vagina between women with and without pelvic floor organ prolapse. Front Surg2022; 9: 760723.
32.
SilvaMETDBessaJNMRynkevicR, et al. Simulation of vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension damage, mimicking a mesh-augmented apical prolapse repair. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2022; 236(4): 573–582.
33.
RinneKMKirkinenPP. What predisposes young women to genital prolapse?Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol1999; 84(1): 23–25.
34.
HendrixSLClarkANygaardI, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse in the women’s health initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol2002; 186(6): 1160–1166.
35.
FábioPMaria ElisabeteSAntónio AugustoF, et al. Prototype of a medical device: intravaginal force measurement device. Lect Note Bioeng2023; 289–299.
36.
SilvaEParenteMBrandãoS, et al. Characterizing the biomechanical properties of the pubovisceralis muscle using a genetic algorithm and the finite element method. J Biomech Eng2019; 141(1): 1–11.
