Table 2.
Biomechanical analysis of the vaginal wall after MatriStem implantation modeling transabdominal insertion (MatriStem TA, n=8) or transvaginal insertion (MatriStem TV, n=8) as compared to historical data for Sham [13]. Results are expressed as median (1st quartile, 3rd quartile). Post hoc P values represent comparisons between groups.
| Stiffness (N/mm) |
Ultimate Load (N) |
Extension (mm) |
Energy Absorbed (N/mm) |
Thickness (mm) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | 35.8 | 154.9 | 11.7 | 413.5 | 4.7 |
| (30.6, 49.5) | (95.8, 172.2) | (10.0, 12.8) | (248.1, 495.7) | (2.5, 9.2) | |
| MatriStem TA | 32.5 | 163.1 | 20.6a | 544.6 | 5.8 |
| (30.2, 61.6) | (106.4, 222.9) | (20.6, 24.0) | (289.1, 625.0) | (4.9, 6.6) | |
| MatriStem TV | 19.7a | 61.7 | 19.4 | 201.7 | 4.5 |
| (10.9, 24.6) | (36.1, 116.5) | (18.2, 23.2) | (141.5, 311.9) | (2.5, 6.6) | |
|
| |||||
| P* | 0.061 | 0.127 | 0.035 | 0.12 | 0.50 |
|
| |||||
| Post hoc P | |||||
|
| |||||
| TA vs. Sham | 0.768 | 0.513 | 0.001 | 0.206 | 0.768 |
|
| |||||
| TV vs. Sham | 0.042 | 0.093 | 0.958 | 0.263 | 0.313 |
*
indicates the overall comparison among the groups
a
indicates p<0.05 compared with Sham