A comparison of gastrojejunal anastomoses with or without buttressing in a porcine model
- 253 Downloads
The addition of staple-line reinforcements on circular anastomoses has not been well studied. We histologically and mechanically analyzed circular- stapled anastomoses with and without bioabsorbable staple-line reinforcement (SeamGuard®, W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ) in a porcine model.
Gastrojejunal anastomoses were constructed using a #25 EEA Proximate ILS® (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH) mechanical stapling device with and without Bioabsorbable SeamGuard® (BSG). Gastrojejunal anastomoses were resected acutely and at 1 week, and burst-pressure testing and histological analysis were performed. Standardized grading systems for inflammation, collagen deposition, vascularity, and serosal inflammation were used to compare the two anastomosis types.
Acute burst pressures were significantly higher with BSG than with staples alone (1.37 versus 0.39 psi, p = 0.0075). Burst pressures at 1 week were significantly lower with BSG than with staples alone (2.24 versus 3.86 psi, p = 0.0353); however, both readings were above normal physiologic intestinal pressures. There was no statistical difference in inflammation (13.4 versus 15.6, p = 0.073), width of mucosa (3.2 mm versus 3.2 mm, p = 0.974), adhesion formation (0 versus 0.5, p = 0.575), number of blood vessels (0.5 versus 1.0, p = 0.056), or serosal inflammation (2.0 versus 1.0, p = 0.27) between the stapled anastomoses and those buttressed with BSG. Stapled-only anastomoses had statistically more collagen (2.0 versus 1.0, p = 0.005) than the anastomoses supported with BSG.
The addition of BSG as a staple-line reinforcement acutely improves the burst strength of a circular anastomosis but not at 1 week. At 1 week, a decrease in collagen content with the BSG-buttressed stapled anastomosis was the only difference in the histologic parameters studied with no difference in vascularity, adhesions, or inflammation. The long-term effect of BSG on anastomotic strength or scarring is yet to be determined. The clinical implications may include decreased stricture formation and also decreased strength at anastomoses.
Key WordsSeamGuard® Staple-line reinforcement Burst pressures Anastomotic leak Anastomosis model Anastomosis
Financial support for this project was provided by W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
- 11.Lustosa SA, Matos D, Atallah AN, Castro AA (2001) Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD003144Google Scholar
- 15.de la Portilla F, Zbar AP, Rada R, Vega J, Cisneros N, Maldonado VH, Utrera A, Espinosa E (2006) Bioabsorbable staple-line reinforcement to reduce staple-line bleeding in the transection of mesenteric vessels during laparoscopic colorectal resection: a pilot study. Tech Coloproctol 10:335–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Vaughn CC, Vaughn PL, Vaughn CC III, Sawyer P, Manning M, Anderson D, Roseman L, Herbst TJ (1998) Tissue response to biomaterials used for staple-line reinforcement in lung resection: a comparison between expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and bovine pericardium. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 13:259–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Kangas J, Paasimaa S, Makela P, Leppilahti J, Tormala P, Waris T et al (2001) Comparison of strength properties of poly-L/D-lactide (PLDLA) 96/4 and polyglyconate (Maxon) sutures: in vitro, in the subcutis, and in the achilles tendon of rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res 58:121–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Zerey M, Peindl RD, Paton BL, Hope WW, Newcomb WL, Schmelzer TM, Cristiano JA, Heath JJ, Lincourt AE, Kercher KW, Gersin K, Heniford BT (2007) Anastomotic leaks: a scientific perspective. Poster Presentation, Association for Academic Surgery, Academic Surgical Congress, February 2007, Phoenix, AZGoogle Scholar
- 51.Peacock EE Jr, van Winkle W Jr (1976) The biochemistry and the environment of wounds and their relation to wound strength. In: Surgery and biology of wound repair. WB Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 52.Halsted WS (1987) Circular suture of the intestine—an experimental study. Am J Med Sci 94:436–461Google Scholar