Abstract
Background and Aims
The objective of this study is to compare the postoperative motility between hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis and functional end-to-end anastomosis.
Methods
Fifteen conscious dogs were divided into three groups: normal intact dog group, end-to-end anastomosis group (EE), and functional end-to-end anastomosis group (FEE). In the EE and FEE groups, the dogs underwent a transection of the jejunum 30 cm distal to the Treitz ligament and anastomosis in each method. To compare the gastrointestinal motility, the time to the appearance and the rate of propagation of interdigestive migrating motor contractions (IMC) across the anastomosis, as well as the motility index (MI) at the oral and anal sides of the anastomosis, were measured using strain gauge force transducers. Furthermore, the histological examination of intrinsic nerve fibers was evaluated.
Results
The time to the appearance of propagation of IMC in the EE and FEE was not significantly different. The propagation rates of IMC in the EE and FEE completely recovered within 4 weeks of the surgery. The MI in the EE and FEE was not significantly different. In addition, no continuity of intrinsic nerve fibers across the anastomosis could be identified in either group.
Conclusions
In the present study, there are no significant differences between the EE and FEE with regard to the time of the appearance and the rate of propagation of IMC. These results suggest that the effect of functional end-to-end anastomosis on postoperative motility is not different from that of hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- EE:
-
End-to-end anastomosis group
- FEE:
-
Functional end-to-end anastomosis group
- MI:
-
Motility index
- IMC:
-
Interdigestive migrating motor contractions
- PBS:
-
Phosphate-buffered saline
- ANOVA:
-
Analysis of variance
- MMCs:
-
Migrating myoelectric complexes
References
Steichen FM. The use of staplers in anatomical side-to-side and functional end-to-end enteroanastomoses. Surgery. 1968;64:948–953.
Bluett MK, Healy DA, Kalemeris GC, O’Leary JP. Comparison of automatic staplers in small bowel anastomoses. South Med J. 1986;79:712–716.
Goto T, Kawasaki K, Fujino Y, et al. Evaluation of the mechanical strength and patency of functional end-to-end anastomoses. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1508–1511.
Arnold JH, Alevizatos CA, Cox SE, Richards WO. Propagation of small bowel migrating motor complex activity fronts varies with anastomosis type. J Surg Res. 1991;51:506–511.
Hocking MP, Carlson RG, Courington KR, Bland KI. Altered motility and bacterial flora after functional end-to-end anastomosis. Surgery. 1990;108:384–391. discussion 391–392.
Sarna S, Condon RE, Cowles V. Enteric mechanisms of initiation of migrating myoelectric complexes in dogs. Gastroenterology. 1983;84:814–822.
Fox DA, Bass P. Selective myenteric neuronal denervation of the rat jejunum. Differential control of the propagation of migrating myoelectric complex and basic electric rhythm. Gastroenterology. 1984;87:572–577.
Sarna S, Stoddard C, Belbeck L, McWade D. Intrinsic nervous control of migrating myoelectric complexes. Am J Physiol. 1981;241:G16–G23.
Sarna SK. Cyclic motor activity; migrating motor complex: 1985. Gastroenterology. 1985;89:894–913.
Behrns KE, Sarr MG, Hanson RB, Zinsmeister AR. Jejunoileal transplantation. Effects on characteristics of canine jejunal motor activity in vivo. Dig Dis Sci. 1996;41:884–893.
Heppell J, Kelly KA, Sarr MG. Neural control of canine small intestinal interdigestive myoelectric complexes. Am J Physiol. 1983;244:G95–G100.
Marik F, Marik F. Control of the interdigestive myoelectric activity in dogs by the vagus nerves and pentagastrin. Gastroenterology. 1975;69:387–395.
Furness J, Costa M, eds. The enteric nervous system. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1987.
Sarr MG, Kelly KA. Myoelectric activity of the autotransplanted canine jejunoileum. Gastroenterology. 1981;81:303–310.
Cannon WB, Murphy FT. IV. The movements of the stomach and intestines in some surgical conditions. Ann Surg. 1906;43:512–536.
Nygaard K. Gastro-intestinal motility after resections and bypass-operations on the small intestine in rats. The effect of different types of anastomosis. Acta Chir Scand. 1967;133:653–663.
Miedema BW, Schillie S, Simmons JW, Burgess SV, Liem T, Silver D. Small bowel motility and transit after aortic surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2002;36:19–24.
Schippers E, Holscher AH, Bollschweiler E, Siewert JR. Return of interdigestive motor complex after abdominal surgery. End of postoperative ileus? Dig Dis Sci. 1991;36:621–626.
Acknowledgments
We thank Mr. R. Aoyagi and Ms. M. Saito (Department of Tumor Pathology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine) for their excellent technical assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Toyomasu, Y., Mochiki, E., Ando, H. et al. Comparison of Postoperative Motility in Hand-Sewn End-to-End Anastomosis and Functional End-to-End Anastomosis: An Experimental Study in Conscious Dogs. Dig Dis Sci 55, 2489–2497 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-009-1040-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-009-1040-9