Cargando…

In vitro description of a new technique for stapled side-to-side jejunocecal anastomosis in horses and CT scan anatomical comparison with other techniques

BACKGROUND: Stapled jejunocecal anastomoses are commonly performed in equine abdominal surgery. They carry higher complication rates compared to handsewn techniques. In human surgery various causes likely to lead to failure of stapled techniques have been evaluated, including staple line failure. Re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gandini, Marco, Giusto, Gessica, Iotti, Bryan, Valazza, Alberto, Sammartano, Federica
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122904/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25238113
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-10-S1-S9
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Stapled jejunocecal anastomoses are commonly performed in equine abdominal surgery. They carry higher complication rates compared to handsewn techniques. In human surgery various causes likely to lead to failure of stapled techniques have been evaluated, including staple line failure. Recently Freeman proposed a technique to perform a stapled jejunocecal anastomosis in horses while avoiding blind pouch formation. The aim of this study is to describe a method for stapled side-to-side jejunocecal anastomosis in horses and to compare it with other techniques with computed tomography to assess stomal area, shape and blind pouch size. METHODS: Intestinal specimens comprising the cecum, ileum and jejunum from 18 horses were collected and were divided into three groups. In Group S a standard stapled side-to-side jejunocecal anastomosis was performed. In Group F the anastomosis was performed using a modified technique proposed by Freeman. In Group G the anastomosis was performed with a modified technique proposed by the authors. Inflated bowel segments were CT scanned to obtain a MultiPlanar Reconstruction of the stoma and afferent small intestine before calculating the cross-sectional area of each of these regions. The ratio of the measured areas was compared between the three techniques. The volume of the blind-end pouch was measured and its ratio with the intestinal area compared between techniques. The cecum was opened and the length of the stoma measured with a caliper and compared to the intended initial length. RESULTS: The stomal/intestinal area ratio was not significantly different between techniques. No statistically significant difference was found in the stomal ideal/real perimeter ratio. There was no statistically significant difference in the intended/real stomal length ratio, and all techniques featured an increase in stomal length ranging from 2 to 12 %. Blind pouch formation was a consistent finding in Group S and was virtually absent in Groups F and G. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Freeman and the new (G) technique were comparable to the standard technique in terms of stomal area, stomal shape and difference in stomal elongation. They consistently produced a smaller blind pouch and allowed easier placement of the staplers.