Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The healing of single- and double-row stapled circular anastomoses

  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

The healing of anastomoses performed by single- or double-row circular stapling instruments is analyzed in the dog colon. Mucosal healing is better in single-row stapled anastomoses. Apposition of the outer intestinal layers is superior in double-row stapled anastomoses. Bursting pressure and circular wall tension values are identical in both anastomotic types except at 24 hours after surgery when the strength of a double-row stapled anastomosis is superior. A cost-benefit analysis is still in favor of single-row circular instruments. In our opinion, adequate preoperative bowel preparation and a thorough surgical technique, when preparing the cut edges to be anastomosed and placing purse-string sutures, are infinitely more important than making a choice between single- or double-row stapling machines.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Irwin TT. Wound healing: principles and practice. London: Chapman and Hall, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hamilton JE. Reappraisal of open intestinal anastomoses. Ann Surg 1967;165:917–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Loeb MJ. Comparative strength of inverted, everted, and end-on intestinal anastomoses. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1967;125:301–4.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Trueblood HW, Nelsen TS, Kohatsu S, Oberhelman HA Jr. Wound healing in the colon: comparison of inverted and everted closures. Surgery 1969;65:919–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Yale CE, Van Gemert JV. Healing of inverted and everted intestinal anastomoses in germfree rats. Surgery 1971;69:382–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goligher JC, Morris C, McAdam WA, de Dombal FT. A controlled trial of inverting versus everting intestinal suture in clinical large bowel surgery. Br J Surg 1970;57:817–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Irvin TT, Goligher JC, Johnston D. A randomised prospective clinical trial of single layer and two layer inverting intestinal anastomoses. Br J Surg 1973;60:457–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Everett WG. A comparison of one-layer and two-layer techniques for colorectal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1975;62:135–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Goligher JC, Lee PW, Simpkins KC, Lintott DJ. A controlled comparison of one- and two-layer techniques of suture for high and low colorectal anastomoses. Br J Surg 1977;64:609–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fain SN, Patin CS, Morgenstern L. Use of a mechanical suturing apparatus in low colorectal anastomosis. Arch Surg 1975;110: 1079–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Goligher JC, Lee PW, Macfie MB, Simpkins KC, Lintott DJ. Experience with the Russian Model 249 suture gun for anastomosis of the rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1979;148:517–24.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bolton RA, Britton DC. Restorative surgery of the rectum with a circumferential stapler. Lancet 1980;1:850–1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ravitch MM, Steichen FM. A stapling instrument for end-to-end inverting anastomoses in the gastrointestinal tract. Ann Surg 1979;189:791–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Shahinian TK, Bowen JR, Dorman BA, Soderberg CH, Thompson WR. Experience with the EEA stapling device. Am J Surg 1980;139:549–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Beart RW, Kelly KA. Randomized prospective evaluation of the EEA stapler for colorectal anastomoses. Am J Surg 1981;141: 143–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Athanasiadis S, Barry BA, Girona J. Vergleich der behandlungsergebnisse bei dickdarmanastomosen mit den klammerhtgeräten EEA und SPTU in einem kollektiv von 260 patienten. Langenbecks Arch Chir 1981;354:111–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Athanasiadis S, Lufti T, Stahlnecker E, Barry BA, Girona J. Erfahrungen mit dem sovjetischen klammerahtgeräten SPTU in der kolon- und rektumchirurgie. Zbl Chirurgie 1982;107:711–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Negula T, Mandache E. Ultrastructural features of the healing area after everting and inverting suture of the small intestine in rabbits. Acta Morphol Acad Sci Hung 1974;22:227–39.

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jansen A, Becker AE, Brummelkamp WH, Keeman JN, Klopper PI. The importance of the apposition of the submucosal intestinal layers for primary wound healing of intestinal anastomosis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;152:51–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lord MG, Valies P, Broughton AC. A morphologic study of submucosa of large intestine. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1977;145: 55–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Orberg JW, Klein L, Hiltner A. Scanning electron microscopy of collagen fibers in intestine. Connect Tissue Res 1982;9:187–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Stein E, Barry BA. Morphological examination of the healing of colonic anastomoses in the rat. Coloproctology 1983;5:140–4.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Williams CB, Lane RH, Sahai Y, Hanwell AE. Colonoscopy: an air-pressure hazard. Lancet 1973;2:729.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kalinina TW. Die experimentelle Begründung der operation am mastdarm mit anwendung des apparats CK-28. In: Grizman JJ, ed. Chirurgische vernähungsapparate und ihre klinische anwendung. Moskau: v/o Medexport, 1976;6:98–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Freddy M. Penninckx M.D. & Raymond P. Kerremans M.D.

  2. Department of Histopathology, Academic Clinic Gasthuisberg, Catholic University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Karel J. Geboes M.D.

Authors
  1. Freddy M. Penninckx M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond P. Kerremans M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karel J. Geboes M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Penninckx, F.M., Kerremans, R.P. & Geboes, K.J. The healing of single- and double-row stapled circular anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum 27, 714–719 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02554594

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02554594

Key words

Search

Navigation