Skip to main content
Log in

Comparative surgical and colonoscopic appearance of colon anastomoses constructed with sutures, staples, and the biofragmentable anastomotic ring

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The following animal study was undertaken to compare and assess the endoscopic gross appearance and histology of colonic anastomoses constructed with sutures, staples, and the biofragmentable anastomotic ring (BAR).Methods: Three anastomoses—1 BAR, 1 stapled, and 1 sutured—were placed in each of 48 dogs and colonoscopy and anastomotic evaluation were done.Results: No leaks were found by air insufflation at surgery. Grossly, the BAR had serosal hematomas in 27/48 anatomoses vs 7/48 for stapled and 1/48 for sutured (BAR vs stapledP<0.0005 and sutured vs stapledP=0.07). Adhesions were significantly greater for BAR (35/36) and sutured (34/36) compared to stapled (26/36) (BAR vs stapledP=0.01 and sutured vs. stapledP=0.04). Colonoscopic exams at days 3, 7, and 28 showed no significant difference among groups with respect to bleeding, ulceration, necrosis, granulation, or contour. Sutured anastomoses were more stenotic (24/31) than stapled (4/31) or BAR (3/31) ones (BAR vs sutured and sutured vs stapledP<0.005). At 28 days, 10/10 sutured vs 2/10 stapled vs 3/10 BAR were stenotic (BAR vs suturedP=0.02, sutured vs stapledP=0.01). Inflammation on histologic exam at 28 days was not significantly different: sutured (12/12), stapled (12/12), or BAR (9/12). Fibrosis was more prominent in sutured (12/12) than in stapled (5/12) or BAR (4/12) anastomoses (BAR vs suturedP=0.001, sutured vs stapledP=0.004, and BAR vs stapledP=1.00). All anastomoses healed primarily without necrosis or obstruction.Conclusions: (1) Colonoscopy to evaluate anastomoses can be done safely even in the early postoperative period. (2) The BAR anastomoses had the most serosal hematomas; BAR and sutured had more adhesions than stapled anastomoses; and sutured anastomoses had the most stenosis and fibrosis. None of these differences was of clinical significance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arey L (1936) Wound healing. Physiol Rev 16: 327–406

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chardavoyne R, Ratner LE, Jaume JC, Stein TA, Greenberg R, Bank S, Wise L (1989) Safety of endoscopy in the immediate postoperative period following gastric anastomosis. Surg Endosc 3: 13–15

    Google Scholar 

  4. Getzen LC, Roe RD, Halloway CK (1966) Comparative study of intestinal anastomotic healing in inverted and everted closures. Surg Gynecol Obstet 123: 1219–1227

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gilbert JM, Trapnell JE (1988) Intraoperative testing of the integrity of left-sided colorectal anastomoses: a technique of value for the surgeon in training. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 70: 158–160

    Google Scholar 

  6. Halsted WS (1887) Circular suture of the intestine: and experimental study. Am J Med Sci 94: 436–461

    Google Scholar 

  7. Maney JW, Katz AR, Li KK, Pace WG, Hardy TG (1988) Biofragmentable bowel anastomosis ring: comparative efficacy studies in dogs. Surgery 103; 1: 56–62

    Google Scholar 

  8. Whipple AO (1933) The use of silk in repair of clean wounds. Ann Surg 98: 622–671

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bundy, C.A., Zera, R.T., Onstad, G.A. et al. Comparative surgical and colonoscopic appearance of colon anastomoses constructed with sutures, staples, and the biofragmentable anastomotic ring. Surg Endosc 6, 18–22 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00591182

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00591182

Key words

Navigation