4.1 Article

Use of a hyaluronate membrane for jejunal anastomosis in horses

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 62, 期 8, 页码 1314-1319

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.2001.62.1314

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To compare the outcomes of double-layer inverting anastomosis (DIA), single-layer anastomosis (SLA), and single-layer anastomosis combined with a hyaluronate membrane (SLA+HA-membrane) with respect to stomal diameter, adhesion formation, surgery time, and anastomotic healing in horses. Animals-18 adult horses. Procedure Midline celiotomy and end-to-end anastomoses were performed. In control horses (n = 6), DIA was performed; in treated horses, SLA was performed (6) or SLA+HA-membrane was performed (6). Horses were euthanatized 21 days after surgery. Abdominal adhesions were evaluated grossly and histologically. Stomal diameters were measured ultrasonographically and compared with adjacent luminal diameters, Anastomotic healing was evaluated histologically for fibrosis and inflammation, tissue alignment, and inversion. Surgery times were recorded for the anastomotic procedure and compared among groups. Results-There were significantly more adhesions in the SLA group, compared with the DIA and SLA+HA-membrane groups. Reduction in stomal diameters in the DIA group was significantly greater than the SLA and SLA+HA-membrane groups. Surgery times for the DIA group were significantly greater than the SLA and SLA+HA-membrane groups. Histologic findings of fibrosis, inflammation, and mucosal healing were similar among groups. There was significant tissue inversion in the DIA group, compared with the 2 treatment groups. Tissue alignment was not different among groups. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Use of a SLA+HA-membrane was an effective small intestinal anastomotic technique. This technique was faster to perform and resulted in a larger stomal diameter, compared with the DIA technique and significantly fewer perianastomotic adhesions, compared with the SLA technique.

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