Cargando…

The comparison of anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis

Various intestine anastomosis techniques have been studied and used, but which is best is still debated. In our center, double-layer full-thickness intestine anastomosis was still considered as standard. However, a single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis has shown favorable results. This stu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Warsinggih, Akil, Fardah, Lusikooy, Ronald E., Ulfandi, Devby, Faruk, Muhammad, Hendarto, Joko, Jalil, Muhammad R., Sinangka, Andi A.M., Abdi, Amirullah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10406036/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37554861
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000001072
_version_ 1785085660949905408
author Warsinggih
Akil, Fardah
Lusikooy, Ronald E.
Ulfandi, Devby
Faruk, Muhammad
Hendarto, Joko
Jalil, Muhammad R.
Sinangka, Andi A.M.
Abdi, Amirullah
author_facet Warsinggih
Akil, Fardah
Lusikooy, Ronald E.
Ulfandi, Devby
Faruk, Muhammad
Hendarto, Joko
Jalil, Muhammad R.
Sinangka, Andi A.M.
Abdi, Amirullah
author_sort Warsinggih
collection PubMed
description Various intestine anastomosis techniques have been studied and used, but which is best is still debated. In our center, double-layer full-thickness intestine anastomosis was still considered as standard. However, a single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis has shown favorable results. This study created an anastomotic model to compare the anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis. METHODS: This experimental study was performed in 20 randomized healthy male pigs, to be included either in Group A (Single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis) or Group B (Double-layer full-thickness intestine anastomosis). Enterotomy followed by an end-to-end anastomosis suture was performed in the jejunum. Fourteen days after the operation, any anastomosis leakage and its location was documented. The anastomosis strength was evaluated using manometry. Data were compared between groups using the Mann–Whitney U and Fischer Exact test, considering a significance level of P<0.05. RESULTS: The overall mean intraluminal anastomotic bursting pressure was 4,257±1,185. Group A had a higher intraluminal anastomotic bursting pressure but was not statistically significant compared to group B (4.726±0.952 vs. 3.787±1.252 kilopascals, P=0.063). One leakage (5%, antimesenteric area) occurred in Group A and three leakages (15%, antimesenteric and mesenteric area) occurred in Group B. However, statistical analysis with Fischer exact showed no significant difference of leakage rate between those groups (P=0.291). CONCLUSIONS: The anastomosis strength and leakage did not differ significantly between the single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis group and the double-layer full-thickness anastomosis group. However, the location of leakage was most common in the antimesenteric area in the double-layer full-thickness anastomosis group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10406036
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104060362023-08-08 The comparison of anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis Warsinggih Akil, Fardah Lusikooy, Ronald E. Ulfandi, Devby Faruk, Muhammad Hendarto, Joko Jalil, Muhammad R. Sinangka, Andi A.M. Abdi, Amirullah Ann Med Surg (Lond) Original Research Various intestine anastomosis techniques have been studied and used, but which is best is still debated. In our center, double-layer full-thickness intestine anastomosis was still considered as standard. However, a single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis has shown favorable results. This study created an anastomotic model to compare the anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis. METHODS: This experimental study was performed in 20 randomized healthy male pigs, to be included either in Group A (Single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis) or Group B (Double-layer full-thickness intestine anastomosis). Enterotomy followed by an end-to-end anastomosis suture was performed in the jejunum. Fourteen days after the operation, any anastomosis leakage and its location was documented. The anastomosis strength was evaluated using manometry. Data were compared between groups using the Mann–Whitney U and Fischer Exact test, considering a significance level of P<0.05. RESULTS: The overall mean intraluminal anastomotic bursting pressure was 4,257±1,185. Group A had a higher intraluminal anastomotic bursting pressure but was not statistically significant compared to group B (4.726±0.952 vs. 3.787±1.252 kilopascals, P=0.063). One leakage (5%, antimesenteric area) occurred in Group A and three leakages (15%, antimesenteric and mesenteric area) occurred in Group B. However, statistical analysis with Fischer exact showed no significant difference of leakage rate between those groups (P=0.291). CONCLUSIONS: The anastomosis strength and leakage did not differ significantly between the single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis group and the double-layer full-thickness anastomosis group. However, the location of leakage was most common in the antimesenteric area in the double-layer full-thickness anastomosis group. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10406036/ /pubmed/37554861 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000001072 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) , which allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Research
Warsinggih
Akil, Fardah
Lusikooy, Ronald E.
Ulfandi, Devby
Faruk, Muhammad
Hendarto, Joko
Jalil, Muhammad R.
Sinangka, Andi A.M.
Abdi, Amirullah
The comparison of anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis
title The comparison of anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis
title_full The comparison of anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis
title_fullStr The comparison of anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis
title_full_unstemmed The comparison of anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis
title_short The comparison of anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis
title_sort comparison of anastomosis strength and leakage between double-layer full-thickness and single-layer extramucosal intestine anastomosis
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10406036/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37554861
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000001072
work_keys_str_mv AT warsinggih thecomparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT akilfardah thecomparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT lusikooyronalde thecomparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT ulfandidevby thecomparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT farukmuhammad thecomparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT hendartojoko thecomparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT jalilmuhammadr thecomparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT sinangkaandiam thecomparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT abdiamirullah thecomparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT warsinggih comparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT akilfardah comparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT lusikooyronalde comparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT ulfandidevby comparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT farukmuhammad comparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT hendartojoko comparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT jalilmuhammadr comparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT sinangkaandiam comparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis
AT abdiamirullah comparisonofanastomosisstrengthandleakagebetweendoublelayerfullthicknessandsinglelayerextramucosalintestineanastomosis