The clipped intestinal non-perforating anastomosis of small bowel: a new technique

  • Stefan Holland-Cunz
  • Martin Chmelnik
  • Maria Roll
  • Patrick Günther
  • Karl-Herbert Schäfer
Technical Innovation

Abstract

In contrast to adult surgery, the neonatal small intestine confronts the surgeon, depending on the age of the patient, with variable diameters of the intestine. Therefore, anastomoses are usually performed by hand with interrupted sutures. In the presented study, a new technique is demonstrated. An anastomosis in the distal ileum of Sprague Dawley rats was performed with a single clamp applicator (Anastoclip). Small bowel anastomoses were performed in 32 rats. The clipped bowel anastomosis was evaluated concerning stenosis, leakage, and adhesions in comparison to the sutured anastomosis. Tension test and X-ray examination were performed to measure the stability. The rats were sacrificed at day 3 or 14 after laparotomy. The clipped anastomosis is feasible, and faster to perform than the conventional hand-sutured anastomosis (Operation time: control group: 18.5 min versus clipped group 4 min; p > 0.05). Furthermore, there were differences in the mechanical stability, with higher tension forces needed for rupturing the clipped anastomosis. There were fewer stenoses (16.5 mm stenotic diameter in the control group versus 20.6 mm in the clipped group) and fewer adhesions in the group of the clipped anastomosis. Histological examinations were performed and did not show significant differences between the two groups. In the animal model presented, the clipped, intestinal, non-perforating anastomosis (CINPA) shows advantages compared to the common hand-sutured anastomosis.

Keywords

Small bowel anastomosis Adhesions Suture-free anastomosis CINPA 

References

  1. 1.
    Smith GHH, Glasson M (1989) Intestinal atresia factors affecting survival. Aust N Z J 59(2):151–156Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Connor A, Sawin RS (1998) High morbidity of enterostomy and its closure in premature infants with necrotizing enterocolitis. Arch Surg 133(8):875–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hedlund H, Hagberg S, Rubenson A, Sillen U (1989) Pediatr Surg Int 4(4):291–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Della Vecchia LK, Grosfeld JL, West KW, Rescorla FJ, Schere LR, Engum SA (1998) Intestinal atresia and stenosis: a 25-year experience with 277 cases. Arch Surg 133(5):490–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ade-Ajavi N, Kiely E, Drake D, Wheeler R, Spitz L (1996) Resection and primary anastomosis in necrotizing enterocolitis. J R Soc Med 89:385–388Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haberlik A, Hollwarth ME, Windhager U, Schober PH (1994) Problems of ileostomy in necrotizing enterocolitis. Acta Paediatr Suppl 396:74–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ang BK, Cheong D, Teh E, Teoh TA, Tsang C (1999) Skin stapled bowel anastomosis in a canine model. Singapore Med J 40(2):81–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonsson T, Hogstrom H (1992) Effect of suture technique on early healing of intestinal anastomoses in rats. Eur J Surg 158(5):267–270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hendriks T, Mastboom WJ (1990) Healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses. Parameters for repair. Dis Colon Rectum 33(10):891–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bundy CA, Jacobs DM, Zera RT, Bubrick MP (1993) Comparison of bursting pressure of sutured, stapled and BAR anastomoses. Int J Colorectal Dis 8(1):1–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mansson P, Zhang XW, Jeppsson B, Thorlacius H (2002) Anastomotic healing in the rat colon: comparison between a radiological method, breaking strength and bursting pressure. Int J Colorectal Dis 17(6):420–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tirabassi MV, Banever GT, Moriarty KP, Konefal S, Reiter E, Wait R (2004) Feasibility of throcoscopic U-clip esophageal anastomosis: an alternative for esophageal atresia reconstruction. J Pediatr Surg 39(6):851–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inomata T, Sakita K, Ito Y, Ninomiya H, Kashiwazaki N, Sonoki S, Hisamatsu S, Nagai T (2003) A simple method for sutureless gastrointestinal anastomosis in rat. Exp Anim 52(4):345–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Howell GP, Ryan JM, Morgans BT, Cooper GJ (1991) Assessment of the use of disposable skin staplers in bowel anastomoses to reduce laparotomy time in penetrating ballistic injury to the abdomen. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 73(2):87–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edwards DP, Galibraith KA (1998) Colonic anastomosis in the presence of fecal peritonitis using a disposable skin stapler. J Invest Surg 11(4):267–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Holland-Cunz
    • 1
  • Martin Chmelnik
    • 2
  • Maria Roll
    • 2
  • Patrick Günther
    • 2
  • Karl-Herbert Schäfer
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric SurgeryUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric SurgeryUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Biotechnology DepartmentUniversity of Applied Sciences, ZweibrueckenZweibrueckenGermany

Personalised recommendations