4.5 Article

Laser Doppler assessment of the influence of division at the root of the inferior mesenteric artery on anastomotic blood flow in rectosigmoid cancer surgery

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 689-697

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-006-0221-7

关键词

laser Doppler flowmetry; inferior mesenteric artery; colorectal surgery; anastomosis; ischemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of dividing the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) and preserving the left colic artery (LCA) on rectosigmoid cancer surgery. Patients and methods Colonic blood flow at the proximal site of the anastomosis was measured by laser Doppler flowmetry in 96 patients with cancer of the rectum and sigmoid colon while clamping IMA or LCA. Results were analyzed with patient characteristics and postoperative complications. Results Blood flow was significantly decreased by either IMA or LCA clamping, and its reduction rate was 38.5 +/- 1.8%, ranged from 0 to 82.8%, or 16.4 +/- 1.8%, ranged from 0 to 66.2%, respectively. For multivariate analyses, aging and male gender were predictive factors of high blood flow reduction by IMA clamping. The reduction rate was significantly correlated with aging in male patients, while no such correlation was observed in women. Aging correlation in men was more significant in ultralow anterior resection cases. Three elderly male patients received IMA high ligation among 19 patients who demonstrated more than 50% blood flow reduction by IMA clamping. Among these, two patients, those who underwent ultralow anterior resection, suffered severe anastomotic ischemia. Conclusions Colonic blood flow at the proximal site of the anastomosis was significantly decreased by either IMA or LCA clamping. Patients with high reduction by IMA clamping need intraoperative efforts to prevent anastomotic ischemia, particularly in elderly male patients who undergo ultralow anterior resection.

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

4.5
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