Skip to main content

Evaluation of sutureless anastomosis after ileostomy takedown using the self-forming magnet anastomosis system in a porcine model



Current standard of care for creation of small bowel anastomoses after a loop ileostomy reversal includes the use of stapler devices and sutures. Compression anastomosis devices have been used for decades, aimed toward improved outcomes with a “staple free” & “suture free” anastomosis. The self-forming magnet (SFM) device is a type of compression anastomosis device used to safely and effectively create an end-to-end small bowel anastomosis without the localized inflammatory response seen with sutures or staples, as no foreign bodies are left behind.


A Good Laboratory Practice preclinical study using a porcine model to evaluate creating an in vivo anastomosis via magnetic compression between two segments of small bowel (jejunum or ileum) was performed. Magnetic anastomoses were compared to stapled and handsewn anastomoses. Six animals were used for the magnetic anastomosis and eight for the two control groups for a total of 14 subjects.


Mean creation times were 17.1 min (SD 6.06) for the SFM group, 10.3 min (SD 6.55, CI 95%) for the stapled anastomosis group, and 28.3 min (SD 2.63, CI 95%) for the suture anastomosis group, with a statistically significant difference among groups (p < 0.0021). All evaluated SFM anastomosis, stapled anastomosis, and handsewn anastomosis underwent a burst test with a pressure of 1.3 PSI. All six magnets used for anastomoses were naturally expelled. The range of days to expel magnets was 10–17 days. Intestinal anastomoses using magnets had considerably less residual scarring and intestinal distortion than anastomoses done with either suture or staples.


This preclinical study documents the safety and efficacy of creating end-to-end small bowel anastomoses after ileostomy takedown using a magnetic compression device. The result is an anastomosis free of foreign objects with less inflammation, scarring, distortion, and mural thickening than seen in sutured or stapled anastomoses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14


  1. Choy PYG, Bissett IP, Docherty JG, Parry BR, Merrie A, Fitzgerald A (2011) Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Katz S, Izhar M, Mirelman D (1981) Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures. A possible factor in suture induced infection. Ann Surg 194(1):35–41.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ballantyne GH (1984) The experimental basis of intestinal suturing—effect of surgical technique, inflammation, and infection on enteric wound healing. Dis Colon Rectum 27(1):61–71.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Telem DA, Chin EH, Nguyen SQ, Divino CM (2010) Risk factors for anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery: a case-control study. Arch Surg 145(4):371–376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wullstein C, Gross E (2000) Compression anastomosis (AKA-2) in colorectal surgery: results in 442 consecutive patients. Br J Surg 87(8):1071–1075.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. An Y, Zhang Y, Liu H et al (2018) Gastrojejunal anastomosis in rats using the magnetic compression technique. Sci Rep 8(1):1–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gonzalez LM, Moeser AJ, Blikslager AT (2015) Porcine models of digestive disease: the future of large animal translational research. Transl Res 166(1):12–27.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kopelman D, Hatoum OA, Kimmel B et al (2007) Compression gastrointestinal anastomosis. Expert Rev Med Devices 4(6):821–828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Graves CE, Co C, Hsi RS et al (2017) Magnetic compression anastomosis (Magnamosis): first-in-human trial. J Am Coll Surg 225(5):676-681.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


This study was funded by GI Windows.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evangelos Messaris.

Ethics declarations


Dr. Askenasy and Dr. Baldwin are consultants for GI Windows. Dr. Ryou is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Olympus, Cook and Fujifilm. He is the Chief Medical Officer and co-founder of GI Windows. Dr. Thompson is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Covidien/Medtronic, Enterasense Ltd, Fractyl, GI Dynamics, Lumendi and USGI Medical. Received research support from Aspire Bariatrics and USGI medical. A research grant from ERBE, FujiFilm, Lumendi and USGI Medical. He is a general partner at BlueFlame Healthcare, serves as a board member at EnVision Endoscopy and an advisory board member at USGI Medical and Fractyl. He should say has ownership interest at GI Windows. The facilities, animals, and OR cost were paid by GI Windows. Both authors/surgeons Ana Sofia Ore and Evangelos Messaris (first and senior author) do not have any conflict of interest and are not paid consultants. Dr. Ore and Dr. Messaris have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ore, A.S., Askenasy, E., Ryou, M. et al. Evaluation of sutureless anastomosis after ileostomy takedown using the self-forming magnet anastomosis system in a porcine model. Surg Endosc (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Staple free anastomosis
  • Magnetic compression device
  • Small bowel anastomosis
  • Self-forming magnets (SFM)