Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 1062–1072

Effects of enteral infusion of hypertonic saline and nutrients on canine jejunal motor patterns


  • Heinz-Robert Schmid
    • Institut für Zoophysiologie, Division of Gastrointestinal PhysiologyUniversität Hohenheim
  • Hans-Jörg Ehrlein
    • Institut für Zoophysiologie, Division of Gastrointestinal PhysiologyUniversität Hohenheim
Original Articles

DOI: 10.1007/BF01295722

Cite this article as:
Schmid, H. & Ehrlein, H. Digest Dis Sci (1993) 38: 1062. doi:10.1007/BF01295722


The aim of the study was to clarify the effects of hypertonic solutions on jejunal motility. The study focused on differential effects of hypertonic saline and nutrients. Motility of the canine proximal jejunum was recorded with closely spaced strain-gauge transducers. During fasting, hyperosmotic solutions (up to 1520 mosmol/liter) of saline or nutrients (1 kcal/ml) were infused into the proximal jejunum (0.5–1.5 ml/min) up to 6 hr. The hyperosmotic solutions stimulated jejunal motility. With both increasing osmolarity of saline or increasing energy load of nutrients, jejunal motility linearly declined. The reduction of motility was associated with a change in motor pattern from a propulsive to a more segmenting one. Hypertonic glucose evoked a significantly smaller level of motor activity compared with both saline (at given osmolarities) and an elemental diet (at given energy loads). Motility parameters were not different between glucose and maltose, although osmolarity of maltose was less than half (760 vs 1520 mosmol/liter). In contrast, a mixture of glucose-fructose exerted a smaller inhibition of jejunal motility than glucose. The hypertonic solutions of saline or nutrients were tolerated over 2 hr; with hypertonic saline retrograde power contractions with or without vomiting occurred, whereas with hypertonic nutrients vomiting was preceded by strong inhibition of jejunal motility. Three conclusions can be derived from the present results: (1) The behavior of jejunal motility suggested that the motor activity was the result of both a local stimulation and an inhibitory feedback mechanism. (2) The different degree of inhibition between glucose and saline indicated that the nutrient itself played a major role in the inhibitory feedback regulation, whereas osmolarity was of minor importance. (3) Comparisons between different nutrients suggested a linkage between inhibitory control of motility and the absorptive capacity of the gut for the single nutrient.

Key Words

gastrointestinal tractintestinal motilityosmolarityfeedback regulationenteral nutritiongastrointestinal disorders

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993