Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

No detrimental effects of repeated laparotomies on early healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Little is known about the impact of repeated laparotomies on intestinal anastomotic healing. While experimental data are completely lacking, the sparse data available from clinical studies report high anastomotic failure rates, suggesting a negative effect in this respect. Since the unequivocal determination of such an effect may have important consequences for choosing the optimal treatment strategy for patients suffering from intra-abdominal infection, an experimental study has been performed in an established rodent model.

Methods

Intestinal anastomoses were constructed in healthy Wistar rats (ileal and colonic anastomoses) or 24 h after peritonitis was induced by caecal ligation and puncture (colonic anastomosis only). Rats were then scheduled to undergo no, one (after 24 h) or two relaparotomies (after 24 and 48 h). Anastomotic strength was assessed 3 and 5 days after anastomotic construction. On the third post-operative day anastomotic hydroxyproline levels, matrix metalloproteinase activity and myeloperoxidase activity were measured.

Results

No negative impact of repeated laparotomies was measured on any of the parameters measured. Under non-infectious conditions even an improvement in breaking strength (+48%, p=0.017) but not bursting pressure was found after two relaparotomies, but only in the ileum on the third post-operative day.

Conclusions

In this experimental setting, early anastomotic healing is not adversely affected by repeated laparotomies.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wittmann DH, Schein M, Condon RE (1996) Management of secondary peritonitis. Ann Surg 224:10–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bosscha K, van Vroonhoven TJ, van der Werken C (1999) Surgical management of severe secondary peritonitis. Br J Surg 86:1371–1377

    Google Scholar 

  3. Penninckx FM, Kerremans RP, Lauwers PM (1983) Planned relaparotomies in the surgical treatment of severe generalized peritonitis from intestinal origin. World J Surg 7:762–766

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andrus C, Doering M, Herrmann VM, Kaminski DL (1986) Planned reoperation for generalized intraabdominal infection. Am J Surg 152:682–686

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schein M, Saadia R, Freinkel Z, Decker GA (1988) Aggressive treatment of severe diffuse peritonitis: a prospective study. Br J Surg 75:173–176

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hau T, Ohmann C, Wolmershauser A, Wacha H, Yang Q (1995) Planned relaparotomy vs relaparotomy on demand in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. The Peritonitis Study Group of the Surgical Infection Society—Europe. Arch Surg 130:1193–1196

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lamme B, Boermeester MA, Reitsma JB, Mahler CW, Obertop H, Gouma DJ (2002) Meta-analysis of relaparotomy for secondary peritonitis. Br J Surg 89:1516–1524

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lamme B, Boermeester MA, Belt EJ, van Till JW, Gouma DJ, Obertop H (2004) Mortality and morbidity of planned relaparotomy versus relaparotomy on demand for secondary peritonitis. Br J Surg 91:1046–1054

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wittmann DH, Aprahamian C, Bergstein JM (1990) Etappenlavage: advanced diffuse peritonitis managed by planned multiple laparotomies utilizing zippers, slide fastener, and Velcro analogue for temporary abdominal closure. World J Surg 14:218–226

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schein M (1991) Planned reoperations and open management in critical intra-abdominal infections: prospective experience in 52 cases. World J Surg 15:537–545

    Google Scholar 

  11. Van Goor H, Hulsebos RG, Bleichrodt RP (1997) Complications of planned relaparotomy in patients with severe general peritonitis. Eur J Surg 163:61–66

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bosscha K, Hulstaert PF, Visser MR, van Vroonhoven TJ, van der Werken C (2000) Open management of the abdomen and planned reoperations in severe bacterial peritonitis. Eur J Surg 166:44–49

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pickleman J, Watson W, Cunningham J, Fisher SG, Gamelli R (1999) The failed gastrointestinal anastomosis: an inevitable catastrophe? J Am Coll Surg 188:473–482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Teichmann W, Wittmann DH, Andreone PA (1986) Scheduled reoperations (etappenlavage) for diffuse peritonitis. Arch Surg 121:147–152

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hendriks T, Mastboom WJ (1990) Healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses. Parameters for repair. Dis Colon Rectum 33:891–901

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thornton FJ, Barbul A (1997) Healing in the gastrointestinal tract. Surg Clin North Am 77:549–573

    Google Scholar 

  17. De Hingh IH, de Man BM, Lomme RM, van Goor H, Hendriks T (2003) Colonic anastomotic strength and matrix metalloproteinase activity in an experimental model of bacterial peritonitis. Br J Surg 90:981–988

    Google Scholar 

  18. Opdenakker G, Van den Steen PE, Dubois B et al (2001) Gelatinase B functions as regulator and effector in leukocyte biology. J Leukoc Biol 69:851–859

    Google Scholar 

  19. De Waard JW, Wobbes T, de Man BM, van der Linden CJ, Hendriks T (1995) Post-operative levamisole may compromise early healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses. Br J Cancer 72:456–460

    Google Scholar 

  20. Seifert WF, Wobbes T, Hendriks T (1996) Divergent patterns of matrix metalloproteinase activity during wound healing in ileum and colon of rats. Gut 39:114–119

    Google Scholar 

  21. Torkvist L, Mansson P, Raud J, Larsson J, Thorlacius H (2001) Role of CD18-dependent neutrophil recruitment in skin and intestinal wound healing. Eur Surg Res 33:249–254

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mullane KM, Kraemer R, Smith B (1985) Myeloperoxidase activity as a quantitative assessment of neutrophil infiltration into ischemic myocardium. J Pharmacol Methods 14:157–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schierwagen C, Bylund-Fellenius AC, Lundberg C (1990) Improved method for quantification of tissue PMN accumulation measured by myeloperoxidase activity. J Pharmacol Methods 23:179–186

    Google Scholar 

  24. Koperna T, Schulz F (2000) Relaparotomy in peritonitis: prognosis and treatment of patients with persisting intraabdominal infection. World J Surg 24:32–37

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hutchins RR, Gunning MP, Lucas DN, Allen-Mersh TG, Soni NC (2004) Relaparotomy for suspected intraperitoneal sepsis after abdominal surgery. World J Surg 28:137–141

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mulier S, Penninckx F, Verwaest C et al (2003) Factors affecting mortality in generalized postoperative peritonitis: multivariate analysis in 96 patients. World J Surg 27:379–384

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hanisch E, Schmandra TC, Encke A (1999) Surgical strategies—anastomosis or stoma, a second look—when and why? Langenbecks Arch Surg 384:239–242

    Google Scholar 

  28. De Graaf JS, van Goor H, Bleichrodt RP (1996) Primary small bowel anastomosis in generalised peritonitis. Eur J Surg 162:55–58

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ahrendt GM, Gardner K, Barbul A (1994) Loss of colonic structural collagen impairs healing during intra-abdominal sepsis. Arch Surg 129:1179–1183

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Meldrum DR, Cleveland JC Jr, Moore EE, Partrick DA, Banerjee A, Harken AH (1997) Adaptive and maladaptive mechanisms of cellular priming. Ann Surg 226:587–598

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sautner T, Gotzinger P, Redl-Wenzl EM et al (1997) Does reoperation for abdominal sepsis enhance the inflammatory host response? Arch Surg 132:250–255

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zugel N, Siebeck M, Geissler B et al (2002) Circulating mediators and organ function in patients undergoing planned relaparotomy vs conventional surgical therapy in severe secondary peritonitis. Arch Surg 137:590–599

    Google Scholar 

  33. Witte MB, Barbul A (2003) Repair of full-thickness bowel injury. Crit Care Med 31:S538–S546

    Google Scholar 

  34. Parsons SL, Watson SA, Brown PD, Collins HM, Steele RJ (1997) Matrix metalloproteinases. Br J Surg 84:160–166

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nagase H, Woessner JF Jr (1999) Matrix metalloproteinases. J Biol Chem 274:21491–21494

    Google Scholar 

  36. Van der Stappen JW, Hendriks T, de Boer HH (1989) Collagenolytic activity extracted from intestinal anastomoses of the rat. Matrix 9:238–243

    Google Scholar 

  37. Savage FJ, Lacombe DL, Boulos PB, Hembry RM (1997) Role of matrix metalloproteinases in healing of colonic anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 40:962–970

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Syk I, Agren MS, Adawi D, Jeppsson B (2001) Inhibition of matrix metalloproteinases enhances breaking strength of colonic anastomoses in an experimental model. Br J Surg 88:228–234

    Google Scholar 

  39. De Hingh IH, Siemonsma MA, de Man BM, Lomme RM, Hendriks T (2002) The matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BB-94 improves the strength of intestinal anastomoses in the rat. Int J Colorectal Dis 17:348–354

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    I. H. J. T. de Hingh, H. van Goor, B. M. de Man, R. M. L. M. Lomme, R. P. Bleichrodt & T. Hendriks

Authors
  1. I. H. J. T. de Hingh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. van Goor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. M. de Man
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. M. L. M. Lomme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. P. Bleichrodt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T. Hendriks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Hendriks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Hingh, I.H.J.T., van Goor, H., de Man, B.M. et al. No detrimental effects of repeated laparotomies on early healing of experimental intestinal anastomoses. Int J Colorectal Dis 20, 534–541 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-004-0731-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-004-0731-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation