Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Increasing anastomosis safety and preventing abdominal adhesion formation by the use of polypeptides in the rat

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

Abstract

Background and aims

Postoperative adhesions can potentially be reduced using different anti-adhesive agents, though these drugs tend to compromise healing of an intestinal anastomosis. No method that significantly increases anastomosis safety is known at present. The aim of the study was to develop a concept of preventing postoperative adhesions using differently charged bioactive polypeptides, also considering healing and safety of an intestinal anastomosis.

Methods

An ileocolic anastomosis was performed under both “clean” and “septic” conditions in the rat. The treatment group received intraperitoneal poly-l-lysine and poly-l-glutamate, while controls received sodium chloride. Abdominal adhesions, anastomosis leakage and burst pressure were analysed after 1, 3, 5 and 7 days in the clean anastomosis model and after 7 days in the septic model.

Results

A significant decrease (p<0.01) in the amount of adhesions was seen in animals treated with polypeptides after 1, 3 and 5 days, while no difference was seen after 7 days. The anastomosis demonstrated a significantly higher burst pressure as evaluated at days 1 and 3 (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively) in the polypeptide-treated animals, while no difference was seen between the groups at day 5 or 7.

Conclusion

The use of differently charged polypeptides administered intraperitoneally after surgery resulted in a significant decrease in the extent of postoperative adhesions. Furthermore, an increase in intestinal anastomosis safety, based on improved burst pressure during the first 3 days, i.e. the critical period during the healing process, was noted. No adverse effects were seen in surgery during septic conditions.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kiran RP, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Steel M, Garafalo T, Fazio VW (2004) Outcomes and prediction of hospital readmission after intestinal surgery. J Am Coll Surg 198:877–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alberts JC, Parvaiz A, Moran BJ (2003) Predicting risk and diminishing the consequences of anastomotic dehiscence following rectal resection. Colorectal Dis 5:478–482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Becker JM, Stucchi AF (2004) Intra-abdominal adhesion prevention: are we getting any closer? Ann Surg 240:202–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Beck DE, Cohen Z, Fleshman JW, Kaufman HS, van Goor H, Wolff BG (2003) A prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled study of the safety of Seprafilm adhesion barrier in abdominopelvic surgery of the intestine. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1310–1319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Baker CC, Chaudry IH, Gaines HO, Baue AE (1983) Evaluation of factors affecting mortality rate after sepsis in a murine cecal ligation and puncture model. Surgery 94:331–335

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bedirli A, Gokahmetoglu S, Sakrak O, Ersoz N, Ayangil D, Esin H (2003) Prevention of intraperitoneal adhesion formation using beta-glucan after ileocolic anastomosis in rat bacterial peritonitis model. Am J Surg 185:339–343

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cihan A, Armutcu F, Ucan BH, Acun Z, Numanoglu VK, Gurel A, Ulukent SC (2003) Comparison of the measurement methods of bursting pressure of intestinal anastomoses. Hepatogastroenterology 50 (Suppl 2):ccxxxii–ccxxxiv

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Månsson P, Zhang XW, Jeppsson B, Thorlacius H (2002) Anastomotic healing in the rat colon: comparison between a radiological method, breaking strength and bursting pressure. Int J Colorectal Dis 17:420–425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schnedl W, Dann O, Schweizer D (1980) Effects of counterstaining with DNA binding drugs on fluorescent banding patterns of human and mammalian chromosomes. Eur J Cell Biol 20:290–296

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Parc Y, Frileux P, Schmitt G, Dehni N, Ollivier JM, Parc R (2000) Management of postoperative peritonitis after anterior resection: experience from a referral intensive care unit. Dis Colon Rectum 43:579–587

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nehez L, Vödrös D, Axelsson J, Tingstedt B, Lindman B, Andersson R (2005) Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions: effects of lysozyme, poly-lysine and polyglutamate vs hyaluronic acid. Scand J Gastroenterol (in press)

  13. Beck DE, Cohen Z, Fleshman JW, Kaufman HS, van Goor H, Wolff BG, Adhesion Study Group Steering Committee (2003) A prospective, randomized, multicenter, controlled study of the safety of Seprafilm adhesion barrier in abdominopelvic surgery of the intestine. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1310–1319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rodgers KE, Verco SJ, diZerega GS (2003) Effects of intraperitoneal 4% icodextrin solution on the healing of bowel anastomoses and laparotomy incisions in rabbits. Colorectal Dis 5:324–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Reijnen MM, de Man BM, Hendriks T, Postma VA, Meis JF, van Goor H (2000) Hyaluronic acid-based agents do not affect anastomotic strength in the rat colon, in either the presence or absence of bacterial peritonitis. Br J Surg 87:1222–1228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Weiber S, Jiborn H, Zederfeldt B (1994) Preoperative irradiation and colonic healing. Eur J Surg 160:47–51

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Larsson K (1994) Lipids—molecular organization, physical functions and technical applications. The Oily Press, Dundee, pp 100–106

    Google Scholar 

  18. Menger FM (2003) Migration of poly-l-lysine through a lipid bilayer. J Am Chem Soc 125:2846–2847

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jorquera RA, Berrios J, Reyes JG (2002) Permeability changes induced by polylysines in rat spermatids. Biol Cell 94:223–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. King A, Strand B, Sandler S (2003) Improvement of the biocompatibility of alginate/poly-l-lysine/alginate microcapsules by the use of epimerized alginate as coating. J Biomed Mater Res 64A:533–539

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lucas PA, Warejcka DJ, Zhang LM, Newman WH, Young HE (1996) Effect of rat mesenchymal stem cells on development of abdominal adhesions after surgery. J Surg Res 62:229–232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Turnbull IR, Wizorek JJ, Osborne D, Hotchkiss RS, Coopersmith CM, Buchman TG (2003) Effect of age on mortality and antibiotic efficacy in cecal ligation and puncture. Shock 19:310–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Regenet N, Pessaux P, Hennekinne S, Lermite E, Tuech JJ, Brehant O, Arnaud JP (2003) Primary anastomosis after intraoperative colonic lavage vs. Hartmann’s procedure in generalized peritonitis complicating diverticular disease of the colon. Int J Colorectal Dis 18:503–507

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ghellai AM, Stucchi AF, Lynch DJ, Skinner KC, Colt MJ, Becker JM (2000) Role of a hyaluronate-based membrane in the prevention of peritonitis-induced adhesions. J Gastrointest Surg 4:310–315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Zilling TL, Jansson O, Walther BS, Ottosson A (1999) Sutureless small bowel anastomoses: experimental study in pigs. Eur J Surg 165:61–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Centre of Chemistry and Clinical Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Bobby Tingstedt, László Nehéz, Jakob Axelsson & Roland Andersson

  2. Department of Surgery, Lund University Hospital, 221 85, Lund, Sweden

    Bobby Tingstedt

  3. Department of Physical Chemistry 1, Centre of Chemistry and Clinical Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Björn Lindman

Authors
  1. Bobby Tingstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. László Nehéz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jakob Axelsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Björn Lindman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roland Andersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bobby Tingstedt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tingstedt, B., Nehéz, L., Axelsson, J. et al. Increasing anastomosis safety and preventing abdominal adhesion formation by the use of polypeptides in the rat. Int J Colorectal Dis 21, 566–572 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-005-0053-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-005-0053-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation