Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental evaluation of the mechanical strength of stapling techniques

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The single stapling technique (SST) and the double stapling technique (DST) are common anastomoses for rectal cancer. Although many mechanical devices have been developed, the best choice remains unclear. In this study we examined the strength of anastomoses by determining their bursting pressures using an animal model.

Methods

The intestines of pigs were used. In experiment 1, we compared the bursting pressures for Endo GIA™ 60 blue, Endo GIA™ 60 green, and GIA™ 60 blue. In experiment 2, the bursting pressures of a buttressed cutting site and a nonbuttressed cutting site were measured. In experiment 3, the SST, DST, and DST with buttress using PCEEA™ were performed and the bursting pressures and points of these anastomoses were examined.

Results

The bursting pressure of Endo GIA 60 blue (80.3 ± 10.5 mmHg) was significantly higher than that of Endo GIA 60 green (37.3 ± 4.2 mmHg) and GIA 60 blue (31.7 ± 5.8 mmHg) (p < 0.01). When a cut end was buttressed, the bursting pressure (149.6 ± 37.6 mmHg) was significantly higher than that of the nonbuttressed end (75.3 ± 25.1 mmHg) (p < 0.01). The bursting pressure among SST, DST, and DST with buttress was not significantly different. Only one bursting point was the crossing point of the PCEEA and Endo GIA and the bursting pressure of this point was much lower than that of the others.

Conclusion

Endo GIA was most suitable for DST. The SST, DST, and DST with buttress had almost the same strength. The crossing point of PCEEA and Endo GIA may be a dangerous point for DST.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alper D, Ram E, Stein GY, Dreznik Z (2005) Resting anal pressure following hemorrhoidectomy and lateral sphincterotomy. Dis Colon Rectum 48: 2080–2084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold W, Shikora SA (2005) A comparison of burst pressure between buttressed versus non-buttressed staple-lines in an animal model. Obes Surg 15: 164–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bardini R, Tosato SM, Termini B (2003) Pursestring placement before transsection of the rectum for facilitating the stapled low colorectal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 46: 1712–1714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bittorf B, Stadelmaier U, Gohl J, Hohenberger W, Matzel KE (2004) Functional outcome after intersphincteric resection of the rectum with coloanal anastomosis in low rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 30: 260–265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bluett MK, Healy DA, Kalemeris GC, O’Leary JP (1986) Comparison of automatic staplers in small bowel anastomoses. South Med J 79: 712–716

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chiarugi M, Buccianti P, Sidoti F, Franceschi M, Goletti O, Cavina E (1996) Single and double stapled anastomoses in rectal cancer surgery; a retrospective study on the safety of the technique and its indication. Acta Chir Belg 96: 31–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Graf W, Glimelius B, Bergstrom R, Pahlman L (1991) Complications after double and single stapling in rectal surgery. Eur J Surg 157: 543–547

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hardacre JM, Mendoza-Sagaon M, Murata K, Talamini MA (2000) Use of a cauterizing laparoscopic linear stapler in intestinal anastomosis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10: 128–132; discussion 133–134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Knight CD, Griffen FD (1980) An improved technique for low anterior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapler. Surgery 88: 710–714

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Luna-Perez P, Rodriguez-Ramirez SE, Gutierrez de la Barrera M, Labastida S (2002) Multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with dehiscence of colorectal anastomosis after anterior or lower anterior resection for sigmoid or rectal cancer. Rev Invest Clin 54: 501–581

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ostericher R, Lally KP, Barrett DM, Ritchey ML (1991) Anastomotic obstruction after stapled enteroanastomosis. Surgery 109: 799–801

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ravitch MM, Steichen FM (1979) A stapling instrument for end-to-end inverting anastomoses in the gastrointestinal tract. Ann Surg 189: 791–797

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Roumen RM, Rahusen FT, Wijnen MH, Croiset van Uchelen FA (2000) “Dog ear” formation after double-stapled low anterior resection as a risk factor for anastomotic disruption. Dis Colon Rectum 43: 522–525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sato H, Maeda K, Hanai T, Matsumoto M, Aoyama H, Matsuoka H (2006) Modified double-stapling technique in low anterior resection for lower rectal carcinoma. Surg Today 36: 30–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Steichen FM (1968) The use of staplers in anatomical side-to-side and functional end-to-end enteroanastomoses. Surgery 64: 948–953

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Vignali A, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Milsom JW, Church JM, Hull TL, Strong SA, Oakley JR (1997) Factors associated with the occurrence of leaks in stapled rectal anastomoses: a review of 1,014 patients. J Am Coll Surg 185: 105–113

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Tycohealth Care Japan for technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterological Surgery, Department of Clinical Molecular Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2, Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan

    Kentaro Kawasaki, Yasuhiro Fujino, Kiyonori Kanemitsu, Tadahiro Goto, Takashi Kamigaki, Daisuke Kuroda & Yoshikazu Kuroda

Authors
  1. Kentaro Kawasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yasuhiro Fujino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kiyonori Kanemitsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tadahiro Goto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takashi Kamigaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daisuke Kuroda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yoshikazu Kuroda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kentaro Kawasaki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kawasaki, K., Fujino, Y., Kanemitsu, K. et al. Experimental evaluation of the mechanical strength of stapling techniques. Surg Endosc 21, 1796–1799 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9265-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9265-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation