Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Intracolonic bypass by an intraluminal tube

An experimental study

  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

The most important cause of morbidity and mortality in colonic resection remains anastomotic leakage and, to this end, temporary stomas, with their own incidence of mortality or morbidity, are often created. Problems associated with both anastomosis and stoma can be prevented with the use of an internal bypass tube. This tube is implanted in the proximal colon above the proposed anastomotic site, then passed distally to the rectal ampulla, following which, the proximal and distal colonic segments are anastomosed. The fecal stream and gastrointestinal secretions are thereby prevented from coming in contact with the anastomotic site. The tube is expelled spontaneously after a varying time. The anastomoses in the experimental animals were subjected to maximal stress. Additionally, large dehiscences and induced fecal peritonitis were purposefully created in some animals. Results demonstrated that the intracolonic bypass tube prevents leakage even from gross dehiscences and that these dehiscences progress to complete healing. The experimental study leading to its clinical adaptation is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goligher JC, Graham NG, DeDombal FT. Anastomotic dehiscence after anterior resection of rectum and sigmoid. Br J Surg 1970;57:109–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Irwin TT, Goligher JC, Aetiology of disruption of intestinal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1973;60:461–4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Morgenstern L, Yamakawa T, Ben-Slosham M. Anastomotic leakage after low colonic anastomosis. Am J Surg 1972;123:104–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Adan YG, Volk H, State D. Low colorectal anastomosis after resection for cancer. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1967;125:335–7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zollinger RM, Sheppard MH. Carcinoma of the rectum and the rectosigmoid: a review of 729 cases. Arch Surg 1971;102:335–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Beahrs OH. Low anterior resection for cancer of the rectosigmoid and rectum. Surg Clin North Am 1967;47:971–5.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Smithwick RH. Surgical treatment of diverticulitis of the sigmoid. Am J Surg 1960;99:192–205.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Beahrs OH. Complication of colonic surgery. Surg Clin North Am 1967;477:983–8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dixon CP. Anterior resection for carcinoma low in the sigmoid and the rectosigmoid. Surgery 1944;15:367–77.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Winkler MJ, Volpe PA. Loop transverse colostomy: the case against. Dis Colon Rectum 1982;25:321–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Debas HT, Thomson FB. A critical review of colectomy with anastomosis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1982;135:747–52.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Høier-Madsen K, Bech-Hansen J, Lindenberg J. Anastomotic leakage following resection for cancer of the colon and rectum. Acta Chir Scand 1975;141:304–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schrock TR, Deveney CW, Dunphy JE. Factors contributing to leakage of colonic anastomoses. Ann Surg 1973;177:513–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wara P, Sørensen K, Berg V. Proximal fecal diversion: review of ten years' experience. Dis Colon Rectum 1981;24:114–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leoutsakos BG, Kalofatis GC. Temporary ileal cecostomy. Int Surg 1982;67:321–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Simson A, Srivastava K. Temporary transcecal ileal diversion in prevention of anastomotic leak in planned colonic surgery (an alternative to proximal colostomy) Br J Surg 1975;62:243–5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Graffner H, Fredland P, Olsson SA, Olsson SA, Oscarson J, Petersson BG. Protective colostomy in low anterior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapling instrument—a randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;26:87–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Freund HR, Raniel J, Muggia-Salam M. Factors affecting the morbidity of colostomy closure: a retrospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 1982;25:712–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barron J, Fallis LS. Colostomy closure by the intraperitoneal method. Dis Colon Rectum 1958;1:466–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lewis A, Weeden D. Early closure of transverse loop colostomies. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1982;64:57–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mirelman D, Corman ML, Veidenheimer MC, Coller JA. Colostomies—indications and contraindications: Lahey Clinic experience, 1963–74. Dis Colon Rectum 1978;21:172–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smit R, Walt AJ. The morbidity and cost of the temporary colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1978;21:558–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Burns FJ. Complications of colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1970;13:448–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hines JR, Harris GD. Colostomy and colostomy closure. Surg Clin North Am 1977;57:1279–92.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Botsford TW, Zollinger RM Jr, Hicks R. Mortality of the surgical treatment of diverticulitis. Am J Surg 1971;121:702–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Botsford TW, Zollinger RM Jr. Diverticulitis of the colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1969;128:1209–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yamakawa T, Patin S, Sobel S, Morgenstern L. Healing of colonic anastomosis following resection for experimental “diverticulitis”. Arch Surg 1971;103:17–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McSherry CK, Crafe WR Jr, Perry HS, et al., Surgery of the large bowel for emergent conditions: staged vs primary resection. Arch Surg 1969;98:749–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Garnjobst W, Hardwich C. Further criteria for anastomosis in diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon. Am J Surg 1970;120:264–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dunphy JE. The cat gut. Am J Surg 1971;119:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Miller DW Jr, Wichern WA Jr. Perforated sigmoid diverticulitis appraisal of primary vs delayed resections. Am J Surg 1971; 121:536–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Trueblood HW, Nelsen TS, Kohatsu S, et al. Wound healing in the colon: comparison of inverted and everted closures. Surgery 1969;65:919–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nelson TS, Andersen CJ. Dynamic aspects of small intestinal rupture with special consideration of anastomotic strength. Arch Surg 1966;93:309–14.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cronin K, Jackson DS, Dunphy JE. Specific activity of hydroxyproline-tritium in the healthy colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1968;126:1061–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bell CM. Neostigmine and anastomotic disruption. Proc R Soc Med 1970;63:752.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Goligher JC. Surgery of the anus, rectum and colon. London Bailliere Tindall 1975;742.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Buchmann P, Schneider K, Gebbers JO. Fibrosis of experimental colonic anastomosis in dogs after EEA stapling or suturing. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;26:217–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Herter FP, Slanetz CA. Preoperative intestinal preparation in relation to the subsequent development of cancer of the suture line. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1968;129:49–56.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Ravo, B., Ger, R. Intracolonic bypass by an intraluminal tube. Dis Colon Rectum 27, 360–365 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02552999

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02552999

Key words

Navigation