medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3252 (Print)
Revista de la Asociación Médica del Centro Médico ABC

2012, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC 2012; 57 (4)

Bile duct regeneration in dogs with processed small intestinal submucosa

Herrera MH, Melo MCN, Del Pozzo MJA

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page: 284-291
PDF size: 490.97 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Hypothesis: The SIS material will fully regenerate injured bile ducts without fibrosis thus preventing stenosis, material rejection and fistula formation. Materials and methods: A comparative, randomized, experimental study, blinded to the histopathology observer was carried out. In a sample of 10 mangrel dogs the main bile duct was partially injured and repaired with an elliptical patch of the SIS material. The sample was randomly divided into two groups of 5 dogs each depending on the clinical stage being evaluated (stage I: 15 days, Stage II: 56 days). Results: 3 dogs in the first group presented acute inflammation while none of the dogs in the second group had none. The dogs in the first group did not develop chronic inflammation in contrast to what was found in second group. None of the dogs of the first group developed a granulomatose reaction while 2 in the second one developed it. Native blood vessel infiltration was observed in every dog in the first group. Finally, all dogs in the first group persisted without cellular collagen while those in the second group developed dense collagen fibers. Conclusion: The SIS material is useful for repairing acute bile duct injuries or in the presence of chronic stenotic injuries without the use of biliary-intestinal bypass.


REFERENCES

  1. Lillemoe KD, Melton GB, Cameron JL et al. Postoperative bile duct strictures: management and outcome in the 1990’s. Ann Surg 2000; 232: 430-441.

  2. Longmire WP Jr. Early management of injury to the extrahepatic biliary tract. JAMA 1966; 195: 623-625.

  3. Dogliotti AM, Fogliati E. Operations for fibrous stenosis of the common bile duct. Surgery 1954; 36: 69-79.

  4. Tocchi A, Mazzoni G, Liotta et al. Late development of bile duct cancer in patients who had biliary-enteric drainage for benign disease: a follow-up study of more than 1,000 patients. Ann Surg 2001; 234: 210-214.

  5. Strasberg SM, Eagon CJ, Drebin JA. The “Hidden cystic duct” syndrome and the infundibular technique of laparoscopic cholecystectomy- The danger of the false infundibulum. J Am Coll Surg 2000; 191: 661-667.

  6. Keulemans YC, Bergman JJ, de Wit LT et al. Improvement in the management of bile duct injuries? J Am Coll Surg 1998; 187: 246-254.

  7. Tez M, Keskek M, Özkan Ö et al. External metallic circle in microsurgical anastomosis of common bile duct. Am J Surg 2001; 182 (2): 130-133.

  8. Johnson SR, Koehler A, Pennignton LK et al. Long-term results of surgical repair of bile duct injuries following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery 2000; 128: 668-677.

  9. Lord JW, Chenoweth AI. Free graft over a Vitallium tube for bridging a gap in the bile duct of the dog. Arch Surg 1943; 46: 245-252.

  10. Bergan JJ, Anderson M, Lounsbury FB. Vascularized polyvinyl sponge prosthesis. Its use to replace the canine common bile duct. Arch Surg 1962; 84: 49-53.

  11. Mendelowitz DS, Beal JM. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene in reconstruction of the canine biliary system. Am J Surg 1982; 143: 221-224.

  12. Hartung H, Kirchner R, Baba N et al. Histological, laboratory, and X-ray findings after repair of the common bile duct with a Teflon graft. World J Surg 1978; 2: 639-642.

  13. Gulati SM, Iyengar B, Thusoo TK et al. Use of dacron velour in choledochoplasty. An experimental study. Am Surg 1983; 49: 440-445.

  14. Hooper JH, Shackelford RT. Experimental replacement of the common bile duct. Arch Surg 1962; 85: 166-170.

  15. Bergan JJ, Anderson M, Lounsbury FB. Vascularized polyvinyl sponge prosthesis. Its use to replace the canine common bile duct. Arch Surg 1962;84:49-53.

  16. Belzer FO, Watts JM, Ross HB et al. Auto-reconstruction of the common bile duct after venous patch graft. Ann Surg 1965; 162: 346-355.

  17. Schatten WE, Cramer LW, Herbsman H et al. Experimental reconstruction of the common bile duct with split thickness skin graft. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1957; 42: 747-753.

  18. Ginsburg N, Speese J. Autogenous fascial reconstruction of the bile duct. Ann Surg 1916; 64: 753-754.

  19. Rosen M et al. Small intestinal submucosa as a bioscaffeld for biliary tract regeneration. Surgery 2002; 132 (3): 481.

  20. Badylak SF. Small intestinal submucosa: a biomaterial conductive to smart tissue remodeling. Tissue Engineering: Current Perspectives, 1993: 179-189.

  21. Cobb MA, Badylak SF, Janas W et al. Porcine small intestinal submucosa as a dural substitute. Surg Neurol 1999; 51: 99-104.

  22. Prevel CD, Eppley BL, Summerlin DJ et al. Small intestinal submucosa: utilization as a wound dressing in full-thickness rodent wounds. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 35: 381-388.

  23. Liatsikos EN, Dinlenc CZ, Kapoor R et al. Laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction with small intestinal submucosa. J Endourol 2001; 15: 217-220.

  24. Kropp BP, Eppley BL, Prevel CD et al. Experimental assessment of small intestinal submucosa as a bladder wall substitute. Urology 1995; 46: 396-400.

  25. Peel SAF, Chen H, Renlund R et al. Formation of a SIS cartilage composite graft in vitro and its use in the repair of articular defects. Tissue Eng 1998; 4: 143-155.

  26. Badylak SF, Kokini K, Tullius B et al. Strength over time of a resorbable bioscaffold for body wall repair in a dog model. J Surg Res 2001; 99: 282-287.

  27. De Aluja AS. Animales de laboratorio y la Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM-062-ZOO-1999). Gac Med Mex 2002; 138 (3): 295-298.

  28. Helton WS et al. Short-term outcomes with small intestinal submucosa for ventral abdominal hernia. Arch Surg 2005; 140: 549-560.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com