4.5 Article

Evaluation of techniques to prevent colorectal anastomotic leakage

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 194, 期 2, 页码 450-457

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.11.045

关键词

Colorectal anastomosis; Anastomotic leakage; Low anterior resection; DST; Bursting pressure; Porcine rectum; Experimental study

类别

资金

  1. Scientific Research Fund of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Anastomotic leakage is a major complication after anterior resection for rectal cancer. The double-stapling technique (DST) is the main method for creating a colorectal anastomosis. However, the rate of anastomotic leakage after DST remains high, and the technical risk factors have not been well established. Materials and methods: Five methods of colorectal anastomosis were performed on the porcine rectum and colon: single-stapled double-purse-string (SSDP), DST, side-to-side with a linear stapler (SS-L), side-to-side with a circular stapler (SS-C), and SS-C with hand-sewn reinforcement (n = 6 for each method). In each group, burst pressures were tested, paying special attention to the locations of the first disruptions. The anastomosis line, including staples, was embedded in polyester resin, and polished sections were examined histologically. Results: Burst pressures were significantly higher in the SS-L and SS-C than those in the SSDP and DST groups (P < 0.001) and were higher in the SS-C with hand-sewn reinforcement than those in the SS-L and SS-C groups (P < 0.001). Remarkably, in the SSDP, DST, and SS-C groups, the first disruptions occurred on the staple line created by the circular stapler. Conclusions: The experimentally strongest colorectal anastomosis created with instruments currently in use was a SS-C. This anastomosis does not overlap staple lines and does not require a purse-string suture. Hand-sewn reinforcement was effective in increasing the anastomotic strength. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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