Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 2184–2192 | Cite as

Magnetic Anastomosis Rings to Create Portacaval Shunt in a Canine Model of Portal Hypertension

  • Hao-Hua Wang
  • Jia Ma
  • Shan-Pei Wang
  • Feng Ma
  • Jian-Wen Lu
  • Xiang-Hua Xu
  • Yi LvEmail author
  • Xiao-Peng YanEmail author
Original Article
  • 197 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This study evaluated a novel magnetic compression technique (magnamosis) for creating a portacaval shunt in a canine model of portal hypertension, relative to traditional manual suture.

Methods

Portal hypertension was induced in 18 dogs by partial ligation of the portal vein (baseline). Six weeks later, extrahepatic portacaval shunt implantation was performed with either magnetic anastomosis rings, or traditional manual suture (n = 9, each). The two groups were compared for operative time, portal vein pressure, and serum biochemical indices. Twenty-four weeks post-implantation, the established anastomoses were evaluated by color Doppler imaging, venography, and gross and microscopic histological examinations.

Results

Anastomotic leakage did not occur in either group. The operative time to complete the anastomosis for magnamosis (4.12 ± 1.04 min) was significantly less than that needed for manual suture (24.47 ± 4.89 min, P < 0.01). The portal vein pressure in the magnamosis group was more stable than that in the manual suture group. The blood ammonia level at the end of the 24-week post-implantation observation period was significantly lower in the magnamosis group than in the manual suture group. Gross and microscopic histological examinations revealed that better smoothness and continuity of the vascular intima had been achieved via magnamosis than with manual suture.

Conclusion

Magnamosis was superior to manual suture for the creation of a portacaval shunt in this canine model of portal hypertension.

Keywords

Magnetic compression technique Magnamosis Portacaval shunt Portal hypertension Canine model 

Notes

Author Contributions

Conception and design: Yi Lv, Xiao-Peng Yan

Performed the research and acquired the data: Hao-Hua Wang, Jia Ma, Shan-Pei Wang, Feng Ma, Jian-Wen Lu, Xiang-Hua Xu, Xiao-Peng Yan

Analyzed the data: Jian-Wen Lu, Xiang-Hua Xu, Xiao-Peng Yan

Manuscript writing: Hao-Hua Wang, Jia Ma, Yi Lv, Xiao-Peng Yan

Final approval of manuscript: All authors

Funding Information

This work was supported by the National Natural Science of Foundation of China (81700545 and 81470896) and Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (2017JQ8021). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments of Xi’an Jiaotong University (permit number 2010-105) approved the study protocol.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Obora Y, Tamaki N, Matsumoto S. Nonsuture microvascular anastomosis using magnet rings: preliminary report. Surg Neurol 1978;9:117–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cope C. Creation of compression gastroenterostomy by means of the oral, percutaneous, or surgical introduction of magnets: feasibility study in swine. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1995;6:539–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pichakron KO, Jelin EB, Hirose S, Curran PF, Jamshidi R, Stephenson JT, Fechter R, Strange M, Harrison MR. Magnamosis II: Magnetic compression anastomosis for minimally invasive gastrojejunostomy and jejunojejunostomy. J Am Coll Surg 2011;212:42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li J, Lu Y, Qu B, Zhang Z, Liu C, Shi Y, Wang B. Application of a new type of sutureless magnetic biliary-enteric anastomosis stent for one-stage reconstruction of the biliary-enteric continuity after acute bile duct injury: an experimental study. J Surg Res 2008;148:136–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avaliani M, Chigogidze N, Nechipai A, Dolgushin B. Magnetic compression biliary-enteric anastomosis for palliation of obstructive jaundice: initial clinical results. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:614–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fan C, Yan XP, Liu SQ, Wang CB, Li JH, Yu L, Wu Z, Lv Y. Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy using novel magnetic compressive anastomats in canine model of obstructive jaundice. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2012;11:81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vicol C, Eifert S, Oberhoffer M, Boekstegers P, Reichart B. Mid-term patency after magnetic coupling for distal bypass anastomosis in coronary surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;82:1452–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shi Y, Lv Y, Wang B, Zhang Y, Jiang A, Li JH, Zhang XF, Li QY, Meng KW, Liu C, Yu L, Pan CE. Novel magnetic rings for rapid vascular reconstruction in canine liver transplantation model. Transplant Proc 2006;38:3070–3074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erdmann D, Sweis R, Heitmann C, Yasui K, Olbrich KC, Levin LS, Sharkawy AA, Klitzman B. Side-to-side sutureless vascular anastomosis with magnets. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:505–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zaritzky M, Ben R, Zylberg GI, Yampolsky B. Magnetic compression anastomosis as a nonsurgical treatment for esophageal atresia. Pediatr Radiol 2009;39:945–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oya H, Sato Y, Yamanouchi E, Yamamoto S, Hara Y, Kokai H, Sakamoto T, Miura K, Shioji K, Aoyagi Y, Hatakeyama K. Magnetic compression anastomosis for bile duct stenosis after donor left hepatectomy: a case report. Transplant Proc 2012;44:806–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jang SI, Kim JH, Won JY, Lee KH, Kim HW, You JW, Itoi T, Lee D. Magnetic compression anastomosis is useful in biliary anastomotic strictures after living donor liver transplantation. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mimuro A, Tsuchida A, Yamanouchi E, Itoi T, Ozawa T, Ikeda T, Nakamura R, Koyanagi Y, Nakamura K. A novel technique of magnetic compression anastomosis for severe biliary stenosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jamshidi R, Stephenson JT, Clay JG, Pichakron KO, Harrison MR. Magnamosis: magnetic compression anastomosis with comparison to suture and staple techniques. J Pediatr Surg 2009;44:222–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosemurgy AS, Bloomston M, Clark WC, Thometz DP, Zervos EE. H-graft portacaval shunts versus TIPS: ten-year follow-up of a randomized trial with comparison to predicted survivals. Ann Surg 2005;241:238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blechman AM. Magnetic force systems in orthodontics. Clinical results of a pilot study. Am J Orthod 1985;87:201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iacovacci V, Lucarini G, Innocenti C, Comisso N, Dario P, Ricotti L, Menciassi A. Polydimethylsiloxane films doped with NdFeB powder: magnetic characterization and potential applications in biomedical engineering and microrobotics. Biomed Microdevices 2015;17:112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boyer TD, Haskal ZJ. The Role of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS) in the Management of Portal Hypertension: update 2009. Hepatology 2010;51:306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bureau C, Pagan JC, Layrargues GP, Metivier S, Bellot P, Perreault P, Otal P, Abraldes JG, Peron JM, Rousseau H, Bosch J, Vinel JP. Patency of stents covered with polytetrafluoroethylene in patients treated by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts: long-term results of a randomized multicentre study. Liver Int 2007;27:742–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Angermayr B, Cejna M, Koenig F, Karnel F, Hackl F, Gangl A, Peck-Radosavljevic M. Survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: ePTFE-covered stentgrafts versus bare stents. Hepatology 2003;38:1043–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klima U, MacVaugh H, 3rd, Bagaev E, Maringka M, Kirschner S, Beilner J, Haverich A. Magnetic Vascular Port in minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation 2004;110:II55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klima U, Beilner J, Bagaev E, Fischer S, Kofidis T, Lotz J. MRI-based safety evaluation of the ventrica magnetic coronary anastomotic system. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2007;15:24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hao-Hua Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jia Ma
    • 4
  • Shan-Pei Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Feng Ma
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jian-Wen Lu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xiang-Hua Xu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yi Lv
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Xiao-Peng Yan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Hepatobiliary SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.National Local Joint Engineering Research Center for Precision Surgery & Regenerative MedicineXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Shaanxi Province Center for Regenerative Medicine and Surgery Engineering ResearchXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Department of Surgical OncologyThe Third Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University (Shaanxi Provincial People’s Hospital)Xi’anChina

Personalised recommendations