4.1 Article

Effects of staple size, tissue thickness, and precompression time on staple shape in side-to-side jejunocecal anastomosis in specimens obtained from healthy horses at an abattoir

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 75, 期 7, 页码 680-684

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.75.7.680

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To determine effects of staple size, precompression time, and tissue thickness on staple shape and tissue approximation in side-to-side jejunocecal anastomosis in equine specimens. Sample-Cecum, ileum, and jejunum specimens obtained from 18 healthy horses at an abattoir. Procedures-Specimens were allotted into 2 groups. Anastomoses were stapled with 4.8- or 3.8-mm staples. Precompression time was 15 seconds for both groups. Staple lines were cut into proximal, middle, and distal sections. Thickness of intestinal walls was measured with a calibrated tissue micrometer, photographs were obtained, and intestinal tissues were digested. An investigator measured staples and assessed the shape of staples on high-definition digital images. Number of optimally shaped staples and staple height were compared among sections and between groups. Results-Use of 4.8-mm staples resulted in poor approximation of tissues in the distal sections of anastomoses. The percentage of optimally shaped staples was 538 of 551 (97.6%) and 616 of 634 (97.2%) for 4.8- and 3.8-mm staples, respectively. The percentage of optimally shaped staples did not differ significantly between groups for the same sections. There was a lower percentage of optimally shaped staples in the distal sections than in the proximal and middle sections of each group. Mean staple height did not differ significantly among sections of each group. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Use of 3.8-mm staples with an adequate precompression time for jejunocecal anastomosis in horses resulted in proper staple shape. These findings could be used to improve the technique and outcome for stapled jejunocecal anastomoses in horses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据