García-Osogobio SM, Takahashi-Monroy T, Velasco L, Gaxiola M, Sotres-Vega A, Santillán-Doherty P

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 198-203
PDF size: 61.82 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background. The safety of an intestinal anastomosis is usually measured by its complication rate, especially the incidence of anastomotic leakage. A wide variety of methods have been described to reestablish intestinal continuity including single-layer continuous or two-layer interrupted anastomosis. Objectives. To evaluate if the single-layer continuous anastomosis using polygluconate is safer and reliable than two-layer interrupted anastomosis with chromic catgut and silk. Material and methods. A prospective, experimental, randomized and comparative analysis was conducted in 20 dogs. They were divided in two groups; group 1 underwent two-layer interrupted anastomosis and group 2 underwent sigle-layer continuous technique. Anastomoses were timed. Both groups were under observation. Anastomotic leakage, and other complications were evaluated. The animals were sacrified and the anastomosis was taken out together with 10 cm of colon on both sides of the anastomosis. Breaking strength, histologic evaluation and hydroxyproline determination were performed. Results. Ten two-layer anastomosis and ten singlelayer anastomosis were performed. A median of 25 minutes (range: 20-30 minutes) was required to construct the anastomoses in group 1 versus 20 minutes (range: 12-25 minutes) in group 2. All animals survived and no leakage was observed. Wound infection ocurred in four dogs (20%). Median breaking strength was 230 mm Hg in group 1 and 210 mm Hg in group 2. Hydroxyproline concentration was 8.94 mg/g in group 1 (range: 5.33-16.71) and 9.94 mg/g in group 2 (range: 2.96-21.87). There was no difference among groups about the inflammatory response evaluated by pathology. There was no statistical significance in any variable evaluated. Conclusions. This study demonstrates that a single-layer continuous is similar in terms of safety to the two-layer technique, but because of its facility to perform, the single-layer technique could be superior.

REFERENCES

1. Ballantyne GH. The experimental basis of intestinal suturing effect of surgical technique, inflammation and infection on enteric wound healing. Dis Colon Rectum 1984; 27: 61-71.

2. Hautefeuille P. Gastrointestinal suturing. Apropos of 570 sutures performed over a 5-year period using a single layer continuous technic. Chirurgie 1976; 102(2): 153-65.

3. Harder F, Vogelbach P. Single layer end on continuous suture of colonic anastomoses. Am J Surg 1988; 155: 611-14.

4. Sarin S, Lightwood RG. Continuous single-layer gastrointestinal anastomosis: a prospective audit. Br J Surg 1989; 76(5): 493-5.

5. Irwin ST, Krukowski ZH, Matheson NA. Single layer anastomosis in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Br J Surg 1990; 77: 643-4.

6. Max E, Sweeney B, Bailey HR, Oommen SC, Butts DR, Smith KW et al. Results of 1,000 sigle layer continuous polypropilene intestinal anastomoses. Am J Surg 1991; 162: 461-7.

7. Ceraldi CM, Rypins EB, Monahan M, et al. Comparison of continuous single-layer polypropylene anastomosis with double-layer and stappled anastomoses in elective colon resections. Am Surg 1993; 59: 168-71.

8. Steele RJC. Continuous single-layer serosubmucosal anastomosis in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Br J Surg 1993; 80: 1416-17.

9. Thomson WHF, Robinson MHE. One layer continuously sutures colonic anastomosis. Br J Surg 1993; 80: 1450-1.

10. AhChong AK, Chiu KM, Law IC, et al. Single layer continuous anastomosis in gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective audit. Aust NZ J Surg 1996; 66: 34-6.

11. Brodsky JT, Dadian N. Single layer continuous sutures for gastrojejunostomy. Am Surg 1997; 63: 395-8.

12. Bailey HR, LaVoo JW, Max E, et al. Single layer continuous colorectal anastomosis. Aust NZ J Surg 1981; 51: 473-6.

13. Bailey HR, LaVoo JW, Max E, Smith KW, Butts DR, Hampton JM. Single layer polypropilene colorectal anastomosis. Experience with 100 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1984; 27: 19-23.

14. Trimpi HD, Khubchanddani IT, Sheets JA, Stasik JJ Jr. Advances in intestinal anastomosis: Experience study and analysis of 984 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1977; 20: 107-17.

15. Law WL, Bailey R, Max E, Butts DR, Smith KW, Thompson DA, Skakun GB, Graves E. Single-layer continuous colon and rectal anastomosis using monofilament absorbable sutures (Maxon). Dis Colon Rectum 1999; 42(6): 736-40.

16. Burch JM, Reginald JF, Moore EE, Biffl WL, Offner PJ. Single- layer continuous versus two-layer interrupted intestinal anastomosis. Ann Surg 2000; 231(6): 832-7.

17. Skakun GB, Rznick RK, Bailey HR, Smith KW, Max E. The single layer continuous polypropylene colon anastomosis: A prospective assesment using water soluble contrast enemas. Dis Colon Rectum 1988; 31: 163-8.

18. Foresman PA, Edlich RF, Roddeheaver GT. The effect of new monofilament absorbable sutures on the healing of musculoaponeurotic incisions, gastrostomies, and colonic anastomosis. Arch Surg 1989; 124: 708-11.

19. Carlson MA, Condon RE. Polygliconate (Maxon) versus nylon suture midline abdominal incision closure: a prospective randomized trial. Am Surg 1995; 61: 980-3.

20. Bourne RB, Bitar H, Andreae PR, Martín LM, Finlay JB, Marquis F. In-vivo comparison of four absorbable sutures: Vicryl, Dexon Plus, Maxon and PDS. Can J Surg 1988; 31(1): 43-5.

21. Katz AR, Mukherjee DP, Kaganov AL, et al. A new synthetic monofilament absorbable suture made from polytrimethylene carbonate. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1985; 161: 213-22.

22. Norma Oficial Mexicana-NOM-062-Z00-1999. Especificaciones técnicas para la producción, cuidado y uso de los animales de laboratorio.

23. Knightly JJ, Agostino D, Cliffton EE. The effect of fibrinolysin and heparin on the formation of peritoneal adhesions. Surgery 1962; 52: 250-8.

24. Woessner JF. The determination of Hidroxyproline in tissue and protein samples containing small proportions of this imino acid. Arch Biochem Biophys 1961; 93: 440-7.