Download PDF
Eur J Pediatr Surg 2015; 25(03): 269-276
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1373847
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Double 90 Degrees Counterrotated End-to-End-Anastomosis: An Experimental Study of an Intestinal Anastomosis Technique

Philipp Holzner
1   Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Birte Kulemann
1   Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Gabriel Seifert
1   Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Torben Glatz
1   Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Sophia Chikhladze
1   Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Jens Höppner
1   Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Ulrich Hopt
1   Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Sylvia Timme
2   Department of Pathology, Institute for Pathology, Freiburg, Germany
,
Peter Bronsert
2   Department of Pathology, Institute for Pathology, Freiburg, Germany
,
Olivia Sick
1   Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Cheng Zhou
3   Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Wuhan No. 1 Hospital, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China
,
Goran Marjanovic
1   Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

17 December 2013

08 February 2014

Publication Date:
12 May 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aim The aim of the article is to investigate a new anastomotic technique compared with standardized intestinal anastomotic procedures.

Materials and Methods A total of 32 male Wistar rats were randomized to three groups. In the Experimental Group (n = 10), the new double 90 degrees inversely rotated anastomosis was used, in the End Group (n = 10) a single-layer end-to-end anastomosis, and in the Side Group (n = 12) a single-layer side-to-side anastomosis. All anastomoses were done using interrupted sutures. On postoperative day 4, rats were relaparotomized. Bursting pressure, hydroxyproline concentration, a semiquantitative adhesion score and two histological anastomotic healing scores (mucosal healing according to Chiu and overall anastomotic healing according to Verhofstad) were collected. Most data are presented as median (range). p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results Anastomotic insufficiency occurred only in one rat of the Side Group. Median bursting pressure in the Experimental Group was 105 mm Hg (range = 72–161 mm Hg), significantly higher in the End Group (164 mm Hg; range = 99–210 mm Hg; p = 0.021) and lower in the Side Group by trend (81 mm Hg; range = 59–122 mm Hg; p = 0.093). Hydroxyproline concentration did not differ significantly in between the groups. The adhesion score was 2.5 (range = 1–3) in the Experimental Group, 2 (range = 1–2) in the End Group, but there were significantly more adhesions in the Side Group (range = 3–4); p = 0.020 versus Experimental Group, p < 0.001 versus End Group. The Chiu Score showed the worst mucosal healing in the Experimental Group. The overall Verhofstad Score was significantly worse (mean = 2.032; standard deviation [SD] = 0.842) p = 0.031 and p = 0.002 in the Experimental Group, compared with the Side Group (mean = 1.729; SD = 0.682) and the End Group (mean = 1.571; SD = 0.612).

Conclusion The new anastomotic technique is feasible and did not show any relevant complication. Even though it was superior to the side-to-side anastomosis by trend with respect to functional stability, mucosal healing surprisingly showed the worst results. Classical end-to-end anastomosis still seems to be the best choice regarding structural and functional anastomotic stability.

Keywords

anastomosis - bursting pressure - hydroxyproline - ischemia - adhesion
 

  • References

  • 1 Dietz UA, Debus ES. Intestinal anastomoses prior to 1882; a legacy of ingenuity, persistence, and research form a foundation for modern gastrointestinal surgery. World J Surg 2005; 29 (3) 396-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Halsted WS. Circular suture of the intestine-an experimental study. Am J Med Sci 1887; 94: 436-461
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kremer K, Lierse W, Platzer W, Schreiber HW, Weller S. Chirurgische Operationslehre; Spezielle Anatomie Indikationen Technik Komplikationen in 10 Bänden. Volume 6, Darm; Stuttgart: Thieme; 1992: 2-19
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Sajid MS, Siddiqui MR, Baig MK. Single layer versus double layer suture anastomosis of the gastrointestinal tract. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 1: CD005477
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Neutzling CB, Lustosa SA, Proenca IM, da Silva EM, Matos D. Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2: CD003144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Geboes K, Geboes KP, Maleux G. Vascular anatomy of the gastrointestinal tract. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2001; 15 (1) 1-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Marjanovic G, Holzner P, Kulemann B , et al. Pitfalls and technical aspects during the research of intestinal anastomotic healing in rats. Eur Surg Res 2010; 45 (3-4) 314-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zühlke HV, Lorenz EM, Straub EM, Savvas V. Pathophysiology and classification of adhesions [in German]. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl II Verh Dtsch Ges Chir 1990; 1009-1016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Reddy GK, Enwemeka CS. A simplified method for the analysis of hydroxyproline in biological tissues. Clin Biochem 1996; 29 (3) 225-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chiu CJ, McArdle AH, Brown R, Scott HJ, Gurd FN. Intestinal mucosal lesion in low-flow states. I. A morphological, hemodynamic, and metabolic reappraisal. Arch Surg 1970; 101 (4) 478-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Verhofstad MH, Lange WP, van der Laak JA, Verhofstad AA, Hendriks T. Microscopic analysis of anastomotic healing in the intestine of normal and diabetic rats. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44 (3) 423-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Diamond MP, Freeman ML. Clinical implications of postsurgical adhesions. Hum Reprod Update 2001; 7 (6) 567-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Coccolini F, Ansaloni L, Manfredi R , et al. Peritoneal adhesion index (PAI): proposal of a score for the “ignored iceberg” of medicine and surgery. World J Emerg Surg 2013; 8 (1) 6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Khan AA, Wheeler JM, Cunningham C, George B, Kettlewell M, Mortensen NJ. The management and outcome of anastomotic leaks in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2008; 10 (6) 587-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 McArdle CS, McMillan DC, Hole DJ. Impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival of patients undergoing curative resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2005; 92 (9) 1150-1154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Meyer T, Merkel S, Pfaffenberger M, Hohenberger W. The surgeon as a cost factor. Cost analysis exemplified by surgical treatment of rectal carcinoma [in German]. Chirurg 2002; 73 (2) 167-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Iancu C, Mocan LC, Todea-Iancu D , et al. Host-related predictive factors for anastomotic leakage following large bowel resections for colorectal cancer. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2008; 17 (3) 299-303
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kube R, Mroczkowski P, Steinert R , et al. Anastomotic leakage following bowel resections for colon cancer: multivariate analysis of risk factors [in German]. Chirurg 2009; 80 (12) 1153-1159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sørensen LT, Hemmingsen U, Kallehave F , et al. Risk factors for tissue and wound complications in gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg 2005; 241 (4) 654-658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Suding P, Jensen E, Abramson MA, Itani K, Wilson SE. Definitive risk factors for anastomotic leaks in elective open colorectal resection. Arch Surg 2008; 143 (9) 907-911 , discussion 911–912
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jaffer U, Moin T. Perforated sigmoid diverticular disease: a management protocol. JSLS 2008; 12 (2) 188-193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Shikata S, Yamagishi H, Taji Y, Shimada T, Noguchi Y. Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg 2006; 6: 2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Burch JM, Franciose RJ, Moore EE, Biffl WL, Offner PJ. Single-layer continuous versus two-layer interrupted intestinal anastomosis: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 2000; 231 (6) 832-837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Resegotti A, Astegiano M, Farina EC , et al. Side-to-side stapled anastomosis strongly reduces anastomotic leak rates in Crohn's disease surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48 (3) 464-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Scarpa M, Angriman I, Barollo M , et al. Role of stapled and hand-sewn anastomoses in recurrence of Crohn's disease. Hepatogastroenterology 2004; 51 (58) 1053-1057
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kanemitsu K, Kawasaki K, Goto T , et al. Experimental comparison of the stapled intestinal anastomotic techniques. Surg Technol Int 2009; 18: 98-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yale CE, Van Gemert JV. Healing of inverted and everted intestinal anastomoses in germfree rats. Surgery 1971; 69 (3) 382-388
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Canalis F, Ravitch MM. Study of healing of inverting and everting intestinal anastomoses. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1968; 126 (1) 109-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Goligher JC, Morris C, McAdam WA, De Dombal FT, Johnston D. A controlled trial of inverting versus everting intestinal suture in clinical large-bowel surgery. Br J Surg 1970; 57 (11) 817-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jonsson T, Högström H, Zederfeldt B. Effect of interrupted and continuous suturing on intestinal wound margin strength in rats. Eur Surg Res 1993; 25 (3) 169-173
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Jonsson T, Högström H. Effect of suture technique on early healing of intestinal anastomoses in rats. Eur J Surg 1992; 158 (5) 267-270
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Slieker JC, Daams F, Mulder IM, Jeekel J, Lange JF. Systematic review of the technique of colorectal anastomosis. JAMA Surg 2013; 148 (2) 190-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Jansen M, Lynen Jansen P, Junge K , et al. Postoperative peridural analgesia increases the strength of colonic contractions without impairing anastomotic healing in rats. Int J Colorectal Dis 2003; 18 (1) 50-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Grommes J, Binnebösel M, Klink CD , et al. Comparison of intestinal microcirculation and wound healing in a rat model. J Invest Surg 2013; 26 (1) 46-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Jönsson K, Jiborn H, Zederfeldt B. Breaking strength of small intestinal anastomoses. Am J Surg 1983; 145 (6) 800-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hendriks T, Mastboom WJ. Healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses. Parameters for repair. Dis Colon Rectum 1990; 33 (10) 891-901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Posma LA, Bleichrodt RP, Lomme RM, de Man BM, van Goor H, Hendriks T. Early anastomotic repair in the rat intestine is affected by transient preoperative mesenteric ischemia. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13 (6) 1099-1106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Brasken P, Lehto M, Renvall S. Fibronectin, laminin, and collagen types I, III, IV and V in the healing rat colon anastomosis. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1990; 79 (2) 65-71
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Klinge U, Si ZY, Zheng H, Schumpelick V, Bhardwaj RS, Klosterhalfen B. Abnormal collagen I to III distribution in the skin of patients with incisional hernia. Eur Surg Res 2000; 32 (1) 43-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Stumpf M, Klinge U, Wilms A , et al. Changes of the extracellular matrix as a risk factor for anastomotic leakage after large bowel surgery. Surgery 2005; 137 (2) 229-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hendriks T, Hesp WL, Klompmakers AA, Lubbers EJ, de Boer HH. Solubility of tissue hydroxyproline in experimental intestinal anastomoses. Exp Mol Pathol 1985; 43 (2) 253-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Syk I, Agren MS, Adawi D, Jeppsson B. Inhibition of matrix metalloproteinases enhances breaking strength of colonic anastomoses in an experimental model. Br J Surg 2001; 88 (2) 228-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Krarup PM, Eld M, Heinemeier K, Jorgensen LN, Hansen MB, Ågren MS. Expression and inhibition of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-8, MMP-9 and MMP-12 in early colonic anastomotic repair. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013; 28 (8) 1151-1159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Ågren MS, Andersen TL, Andersen L , et al. Nonselective matrix metalloproteinase but not tumor necrosis factor-α inhibition effectively preserves the early critical colon anastomotic integrity. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011; 26 (3) 329-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Pasternak B, Rehn M, Andersen L , et al. Doxycycline-coated sutures improve mechanical strength of intestinal anastomoses. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23 (3) 271-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kulemann B, Timme S, Seifert G , et al. Intraoperative crystalloid overload leads to substantial inflammatory infiltration of intestinal anastomoses-a histomorphological analysis. Surgery 2013; 154 (3) 596-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Binnebösel M, Klinge U, Rosch R, Junge K, Lynen-Jansen P, Schumpelick V. Morphology, quality, and composition in mature human peritoneal adhesions. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2008; 393 (1) 59-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Ouaïssi M, Gaujoux S, Veyrie N , et al. Post-operative adhesions after digestive surgery: their incidence and prevention: review of the literature. J Vis Surg 2012; 149 (2) e104-e114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Holzner PA, Kulemann B, Kuesters S , et al. Impact of remote ischemic preconditioning on wound healing in small bowel anastomoses. World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17 (10) 1308-1316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Marjanovic G, Hopt UT. Physiology of anastomotic healing [in German]. Chirurg 2011; 82 (1) 41-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar