Advertisement

Obesity Surgery

, Volume 29, Issue 11, pp 3560–3568 | Cite as

The Positive Effects of the Human Amniotic Membrane on the Healing of Staple Line After Sleeve Gastrectomy Applied Long-Evans Rat Model

  • Murat Ferhat FerhatogluEmail author
  • Taner Kıvılcım
  • Kazım Senol
  • Gurcan Vural
  • Abdulcabbar Kartal
  • Said İncir
  • Ali İlker Filiz
  • Abut Kebudi
Original Contributions
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The staple line leakage is a dangerous complication of sleeve gastrectomy. Various strategies have been tried to reduce the leakage risk. The amniotic membrane (AmM) is the inner layer of the placental membranes and has anti-inflammatory, anti-fibrosis, and anti-scarring effects, and it also has lower immune characteristics which are another essential characteristic of AmM concerning its utility for grafting. In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of AmM on the staple line healing process of sleeve gastrectomy model in rats.

Materials and Methods

We used twenty-eight Long-Evans rats in this study. Sleeve gastrectomy was performed with tristapler. Fourteen rats served as controls, AmM was applied staple line of the other fourteen. Fourteen animals were sacrificed (seven from the AmM applied group and the other seven from the control group) on the third postoperative day. And, the other fourteen animals were sacrificed (seven from the AmM applied group and seven from the control group) on the seventh postoperative day. The tissue around the staple line was evaluated microscopically and macroscopically, bursting pressures and hydroxyproline levels were also measured.

Results

The bursting pressure and hydroxyproline measurements of the AmM applied group was significantly higher on the seventh postoperative day (p = 0.015, p = 0.012) Fibroblast activity and neoangiogenesis of the AmM applied group was also significantly higher on the seventh postoperative day (p = 0.004, p = 0.002).

Conclusion

This study showed that covering of staple line of sleeve gastrectomy model in rats significantly provided higher bursting pressures and increased hydroxyproline levels, fibroblast activity, and neoangiogenesis which may potentially lead a better staple line healing. We think further investigations are needed on this issue.

Keywords

Sleeve gastrectomy Amniotic membrane Staple line healing Leakage Complication 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors of this manuscript would like to thank Veterinary Burcu Cevreli for her expert advice on this project.

Authors’ Contributions

MFF, TK, KS, and SI collected the information, reviewed the literature, and wrote the manuscript. AcK, GV, and MFF collected the information. AIF and AK critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final form. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures in the study performed by following the Guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Institutes of Health publication no. 83-26, revised 1985, Bethesda, MD, USA) and the Guidelines of the Animal Welfare Act. And, the Uskudar University, Board of Biological Experiments with Living Animals approved the experimental protocol (April 26, 2018–15).

Informed Consent Statement

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Al Hajj GN, Haddad J. Preventing staple-line leak in sleeve gastrectomy: reinforcement with bovine pericardium vs oversewing. Obes Surg. 2013;23:1915–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-013-1062-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger ER, Clements RH, Morton JM, et al. The impact of different surgical techniques on outcomes in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies: the first report from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). Ann Surg. 2016;264:464–73.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001851.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shikora SA, Kim JJ, Tarnoff ME. Comparison of permanent and nonpermanent staple line buttressing materials for linear gastric staple lines during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008;4:729–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2008.02.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cunningham-Hill M, Mazzei M, Zhao H, et al. Obes Surg. 2019;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-03883-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gagner M, Kemmeter P. Comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leak rates in five staple-line reinforcement options: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2019;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06782-2.
  6. 6.
    Martines G, Digennaro R, De Fazio M, et al. Cyanoacrylate sealant compared to fibrin glue in staple line reinforcement during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Pilot prospective observational study. G Chir. 2017;38:50–2.  https://doi.org/10.11138/gchir/2017.38.1.050.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malhotra C, Jain AK. Human amniotic membrane transplantation: different modalities of its use in ophthalmology. World J Transplant. 2014;4:111–21.  https://doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v4.i2.111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uludag M, Citgez B, Ozkaya O, et al. Effects of amniotic membrane on the healing of primary colonic anastomoses in the cecal ligation and puncture model of secondary peritonitis in rats. Int J Color Dis. 2009;24:559–67.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0645-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Navas A, Magaña-Guerrero FS, Domínguez-López A, et al. Anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects of human amniotic membrane mesenchymal stem cells and their potential in corneal repair. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2018;7:906–17.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.18-0042.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grzywocz Z, Pius-Sadowska E, Klos P, et al. Growth factors and their receptors derived from human amniotic cells in vitro. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2014;52:163–70.  https://doi.org/10.5603/FHC.2014.0019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eming SA, Martin P, Tomic-Canic M. Wound repair and regeneration: mechanisms, signaling, and translation. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:265–6.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3009337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Ham AC, Kort WJ, Weijma IM, et al. Effect of antibiotics in fibrin sealant on healing colonic anastomoses in the rat. Br J Surg. 1992;79:525–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800790617.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phillips JD, Kim CS, Fonkalsrud EW, et al. Effects of chronic corticosteroids and vitamin A on the healing of intestinal anastomoses. Am J Surg. 1992;163:71–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(92)90255-P.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peterli R, Wölnerhanssen BK, Peters T, et al. Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss in patients with morbid obesity the SM-BOSS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319:255–65.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.20897.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Obrien PE, Macdonald L, Anderson M, et al. Long-term outcomes after bariatric surgery. Ann Surg. 2013;257:87–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-018-3525-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stroh C, Birk D, Flade-Kuthe R, et al. Results of sleeve gastrectomy data from a nationwide survey on bariatric surgery in Germany. Obes Surg. 2009;19:632–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-009-9801-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cesana G, Cioffi S, Giorgi R, et al. Proximal leakage after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: an analysis of preoperative and operative predictors on 1738 consecutive procedures. Obes Surg. 2018;28:627–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-2907-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jurowich C, Thalheimer A, Seyfried F, et al. Gastric leakage after sleeve gastrectomy-clinical presentation and therapeutic options. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2011;396:981–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-011-0800-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cong ZJ, Hu LH, Xing JJ, et al. Incidence and mortality of anastomotic dehiscence requiring reoperation after rectal carcinoma resection. Int Surg. 2014;99:112–9.  https://doi.org/10.9738/INTSURG-D-13-00059.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chekan E, Whelan RL. Surgical stapling device–tissue interactions: what surgeons need to know to improve patient outcomes. Med Devices (Auckl). 2014;7:305–18.  https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S67338.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang H, Lu J, Feng J, et al. Staple line oversewing during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017;99:509–14.  https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2017.0074.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peirovi H, Rezvani N, Hajinasrollah M, et al. Implantation of amniotic membrane as a vascular substitute in the external jugular vein of juvenile sheep. J Vasc Surg. 2012;56:1098–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2012.02.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moslemi S, Joraghi SA, Roshanravan R, et al. Effect of human amniotic membrane on prevention of colorectal anastomosis leakage in cases with neoadjuvant radiotherapy: an experimental animal study. Iran J Med Sci. 2016;41:501–6.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karakas DO, Yigitler C, Gulec B, et al. Comparison of 4% icodextrin and omega 3 Fatty acids in prevention of peritoneal adhesions. Indian J Surg. 2014;76:181–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0661-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Uysal A, Dokur M. Comparison of effects of the tacrolimus and cyclosporine A on the colon anastomosis recovery of rats. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2017;92:402–10.  https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2017.92.6.402.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koob TJ, Lim JJ, Massee M, et al. Angiogenic properties of dehydrated human amnion/chorion allografts: therapeutic potential for soft tissue repair and regeneration. Vasc Cell. 2014;6:10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-824X-6-10.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rinastiti M, Harijadi, Santoso AL, et al. Histological evaluation of rabbit gingival wound healing transplanted with human amniotic membrane. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;35:247–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2005.09.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilgus TA, Roy S, McDaniel JC. Neutrophils and wound repair: positive actions and negative reactions. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2013;2:379–88.  https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2012.0383.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Olczyk P, Mencner L, Komosinska-Vassev K. The role of the extracellular matrix components in cutaneous wound healing. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:747584.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/747584.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xiao Z, Wilson C, Robertson HL, et al. Inflammatory mediators in intra-abdominal sepsis or injury – a scoping review. Crit Care. 2015;19:373.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-1093-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rico RM, Ripamonti R, Burns AL, et al. The effect of sepsis on wound healing. J Surg Res. 2002;102:193–7.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jsre.2001.6316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    De Olivera S, Rosowski EE, Huttenlocher A. Neutrophil migration in infection and wound repair: going forward in reverse. Nat Rev Immunol. 2016;16:378–91.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nri.2016.49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Abdulhalim BE, Wagih MM, Gad AA, et al. Amniotic membrane graft to conjunctival flap in treatment of non-viral resistant infectious keratitis: a randomised clinical study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99:59–63.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lim JJ, Koob TJ. Placental Cells and Tissues: the transformative rise in advanced wound care. In: Fonseca C, editor. Worldwide wound healing- innovation in natural and conventional methods. Rijeka: InTech; 2016. p. 121–51.  https://doi.org/10.5772/65321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Galiano RD, Tepper OM, Pelo CR, et al. Topical vascular endothelial growth factor accelerates diabetic wound healing through increased angiogenesis and by mobilizing and recruiting bone marrow-derived cells. Am J Pathol. 2004;164:1935–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63754-6.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yin L, Pi YL. Effect of amnion membrane transplantation on corneal neovascularization in 10 patients with alkali burn. Int J Ophthalmol. 2011;4:110–01.  https://doi.org/10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2011.01.25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nguyen P, Rue K, Heur M, et al. Ocular surface rehabilitation: application of human amniotic membrane in high-risk penetrating keratoplasties. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2014;28:198–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjopt.2014.06.010.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu H, Zhou Z, Lin H, et al. Synthetic nanofiber- reinforced amniotic membrane via interfacial bonding. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2018;10(17)  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.8b03087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ashraf NN, Siyal NA, Sultan S, et al. Comparison of efficacy of storage of amniotic membrane at −20 and −80 degrees centigrade. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015;25:264–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine, Departmet of General SurgeryIstanbul Okan UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Medicine, Departmet of General SurgeryUludag UniversityBursaTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Medicine, Departmet of PathologyIstanbul Okan UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Faculty of Medicine, Departmet of BiochemistryKoc UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations