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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |