Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 44, Issue 8, pp 1181–1188 | Cite as

Comparison of electromagnetic field stimulation on the healing of small and large intestinal anastomoses

  • Alι Nayci
  • Murat Cakmak
  • Selim Aksoyek 
  • Nurten Renda
  • Selcuk Yucesan
Original Contributions


PURPOSE: Magnetic fields have been shown to affect biologic processes. Accordingly, an experimental study was designed to investigate the effect of electromagnetic field stimulation on intestinal healing and to compare small and large intestinal anastomoses. METHODS: An ileal or a colonic anastomosis was constructed in rats. Beginning the day after surgery, randomly assigned groups were exposed to sinusoidal electromagnetic field stimulation of 10.76-mT intensity and 50-Hz frequency, with 2-hour-on/10-hour-off cycles. After seven days, intestinal anastomoses were assessed for hydroxyproline content and breaking strength. Statistical comparison between each experimental and control group yielded significance (P<0.05) in all cases. RESULTS: Hydroxyproline content increased significantly in ileum from 1.650±0.11 (mean ± standard error of the mean) to 2.036±0.11µg/mg (P=0.0249) and in colon from 1.526±0.11 to 1.922±0.11µg/mg (P=0.0135). Breaking strength also increased significantly in ileum from 0.213±0.01 to 0.255±0.01 MPa (P=0.001) and in colon from 0.227±0.01 to 0.270±0.01 MPa (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Electromagnetic field stimulation provided a significant gain in anastomotic healing in both small and large intestine. There were no apparent differences detected between the healing of small and large intestinal anastomoses except for slight differences in the time sequences of events and magnitude. The study demonstrated a significant increase in both biochemical and mechanical parameters. Additional investigations are needed to determine optimal conditions and promote selective biologic responses.

Key words

Electromagnetic field Intestine Ileal anastomoses Colonic anastomoses Wound healing Collagen Hydroxyproline Breaking strength Rat 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bassett AL, Valdest MG, Hernandez E. Modification of fracture repair with selected pulsing electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg 1982;64:888–94.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin Y, Nishimura R, Nozaki K, et al. Effects of pulsing electromagnetic fields on the ligament healing in rabbits. J Vet Med Sci 1992;54:1017–22.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ito H, Bassett AL. Effect of weak, pulsing electromagnetic fields on neural regeneration in the rat. Clin Orthop 1983;181:283–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ottani V, Monti MG, Marocutti M. Influence of pulsed electromagnetic fields on regenerating rat liver after partial hepatectomy. J Anat 1984;139:253–63.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guzelsu N, Salkind AJ, Shen X, Patel U, Thaler S, Berg RA. Effect of electromagnetic stimulation with different waveforms on cultured chick tendon fibroblasts. Bioelectromagnetics 1994;15:115–31.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murray JC, Farndale RW. Modulation of collagen production in cultured fibroblasts by a low frequency pulsed magnetic field. Biochem Biophys Acta 1985;838:98–105.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodman R, Henderson AS. Some biological effects of electromagnetic fields. Bioelectrochem Bioenergetics 1986;15:39–55.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vodovnik L, Karba R. Treatment of chronic wounds by means of electric and electromagnetic fields: part 1. Literature review. Med Biol Eng Comput 1992;30:257–66.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koruda MJ, Rolandelli R. Current research review: experimental studies on the healing of colonic anastomosis. J Surg Res 1990;48:504–15.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hendriks T, Mastboom WJ. Healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses: parameters for repair. Dis Colon Rectum 1990:30:891–901.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jönsson K, Jiborn H, Zederfeldt B. Mechanical and biochemical alterations in the intestinal wall adjacent to an anastomosis. Am J Surg 1986;151:387–90.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blackman CF, Benane SG, House DE, Pollock MM. Action of 50 Hz magnetic fields on neurite outgrowth in pheochromocytoma cells. Bioelectromagnetics 1993;14:273–86.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dindar H, Renda N, Barlas M,et al. The effect of electromagnetic field stimulation on corticosteroids-inhibited intestinal wound healing. Tokai J Exp Clin Med 1993;18:49–55.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rodemann HP, Bayreuther K, Pfleiderer G. The differentiation of normal and transformed human fibroblast in vitro is influenced by electromagnetic fields. Exp Cell Res 1989;182:610–21.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cridland NA, Cragg TA, Haylock RG, Saunders RD. Effects of 50 Hz magnetic field exposure on the rate of DNA synthesis by normal human fibroblasts. Int J Radiat Biol 1996;69:503–11.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bergman I, Loxly R. Two impaired and simplified methods for the spectro-photometric determination of hydroxyproline. Ann Chem 1963;35:1961–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clark RA. Potential roles of fibronectin in cutaneous wound repair. Arch Dermatol 1988;124:201–6.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uden P, Blomquist P, Jiborn H, Zederfeldt B. Influence of proximal colostomy on the healing of an left colon anastomosis: an experimental study in the rat. Br J Surg 1988;75:325–9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foulds IS, Barker AT. Human skin battery potentials and their possible role in wound healing. Br J Dermatol 1983;109:515–22.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weaver JC. Electroporation: a general phenomenon for manipulating cells and tissues. J Cell Biochem 1993;51:426–35.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aaron RK, Ciombor DM. Therapeutic effects of electromagnetic fields in the stimulation of connective tissue repair. J Cell Biochem 1993;52:42–6.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ingvar S. Reaction of cells to electric current in tissue culture. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1920;17:198. Cited in Frank C, Schachar N, Dittrich D, Shrive N, Haas PW, Edwards G. Electromagnetic stimulation of ligament healing in rabbits. Clin Orthop 1983;175:263–72.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prockop DJ, Kivirikko KI, Tuderman L, Guzman NA. The biosynthesis of collagen and its disorders. N Engl J Med 1979;301:13–23.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andrew C, Bassett L. Beneficial effects of electromagnetic fields. J Cell Biochem 1993;51:387–93.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adey WR. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields. J Cell Biochem 1993;51:410–6.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller DL. Miniature-probe measurements of electric fields and currents induced by a 60-Hz magnetic field in rat and human models. Bioelectromagnetics 1991;12:157–71.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Menteş BB, Taşçılar O, Tathcιoğlu E,et al. Influence of pulsed electromagnetic fields on healing of experimental colonic anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:1031–8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sisken BF, Kanje M, Lundborg G, Herbst E, Kurtz W. Stimulation of rat sciatic nerve regeneration with pulsed electromagnetic fields. Brain Res 1989;485:309–16.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glassman LS, McGrath MH, Bassett AL. Effect of external pulsing electromagnetic fields on the healing of soft tissue. Ann Plastic Surg 1986;16:287–95.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hesp F, Hendriks T, Lubbers EJ, Boer H. Wound healing in the intestinal wall: a comparison between experimental ileal and colonic anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum 1984;27:99–104.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jönsson K, Jiborn H, Zederfeldt B. Comparison of healing in the left colon and ileum. Acta Chir Scan 1985;151:537–41.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martens MF, Hendriks T. Postoperative changes in collagen synthesis in intestinal anastomoses of the rat: differences between small and large bowel. Gut 1991;32:1482–7.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hastings C, Winkle W, Barker E, Hinds J, Nichols W. Effect of suture material on healing wounds of stomach and colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1975;140:701–7.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Klein L, Chandrarajan J. Collagen degradation in rat skin but not in intestine during rapid growth: effect on collagen types I and III from skin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1977;74:1436–9.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Freihoffer U, Robinson EA, Jackson DS, Dunphy JE. The effect of bacterial endotoxin on connective tissue growth and wound tensile strength. Surg Forum 1960;11:293–5.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Phillips JD. Effects of chronic corticosteroids and vitamin A on the healing of intestinal anastomoses. Am J Surg 1992;163:71–7.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hinsenkamp M, Burny F, Donkerwelcke M, Cousaert E. Electromagnetic stimulation of fresh fractures treated with Hoffmann external fixation. Orthopaedics 1984;7:411–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alι Nayci
    • 1
  • Murat Cakmak
    • 2
  • Selim Aksoyek 
    • 1
  • Nurten Renda
    • 3
  • Selcuk Yucesan
    • 4
  1. 1.From the Department of Pediatric SurgeryMersin University Medical FacultyMersinTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric SurgeryKιrιkkale University Medical FacultyKιrιkkaleTurkey
  3. 3.Department of BiochemistryHacettepe University Medical FacultyAnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Pediatric SurgeryHarran University Medical FacultyUrfaTurkey

Personalised recommendations