Table 3.

Functional and morphometric analysis of the vagina 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, 14]. Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation for subepithelium and muscularis thickness, or median (1st quartile, 3rd quartile) for contractile function and cell apoptosis quantification. Post hoc P values represent comparisons between groups. EFS: electrical field stimulation.

	Function		Morphometrics		Cell apoptosis (%)
	contractility (mN/mm3)	EFS (g/g)	subepithelium thickness (µm)	Muscularis thickness (µm)	subepithelium	muscularis	adventitia
Sham	0.23	0.46	522 ± 189	1557 ± 499	0.18	0.02	0.65
	(0.17, 0.35)	(0.27, 0.70)			(0.12, 0.28)	(0.01, 0.03)	(0.47, 0.72)
MatriStem TA	0.19	0.38	509 ± 140	1406 ± 324	0.08	0.07	1.48
	(0.16, 0.22)	(0.23, 0.57)			(0.08, 0.21)	(0.04, 0.20)	(0.42, 3.06)
MatriStem TV	0.14	0.58	855 ± 389	1518 ± 218	0.19	0.08	0.93
	(0.09, 0.34)	(0.26, 0.85)			(0.02, 0.65)	(0.03, 0.09)	(0.70, 1.24)
P*	0.154	0.797	0.064	0.747	0.940	0.792	0.280
Post hoc P
TA vs. Sham	0.505	0.721	0.993	0.685	0.852	0.491	0.366
TV vs. Sham	0.189	0.613	0.051	0.978	0.950	0.950	0.166

^*indicates the overall comparison among the groups