Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of small intestinal serosal defect closure on leakage rate and adhesion formation: a pilot study using rabbit models

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The management of small intestinal serosal defects remains controversial. Non-closure of such defects is regarded as a risk factor of fistula formation or intestinal leakage, whereas defect closure with absorbable suture material is potentially associated with adhesion formation. The aim of our pilot study was to evaluate the influence of small intestinal serosal defect closure on peritoneal wound healing, leakage rate, and adhesion formation in a rabbit model.

Methods

Twenty-two male rabbits were randomized into two groups. Following median laparotomy, a standardized small intestinal serosal defect with a diameter of 1 cm was performed. Either the defect was closed by two seromuscular 4/0 polyglactin single sutures (n = 11) or the defect was left open (n = 11). On postoperative day 14, all animals were sacrificed for morphological investigations. Complications and the rate of intestinal leakage were measured. The degree of adhesion formation was measured by computer-assisted planimetry.

Results

No animal developed fistula formation or intestinal leakage. Eight (73%) animals of the closure group developed local peritoneal adhesions with a mean size of 39.7 ± 45 mm2. No animal in the non-closure group revealed local peritoneal adhesions at the defect. However, two (18%) animals in the non-closure group developed peritoneal adhesions distant to the defect with a mean size of 3.5 ± 9 mm2. Comparing both groups, the size of peritoneal adhesions was significantly higher in the closure group (p = 0.013).

Conclusions

Closure of isolated serosal injuries with resorbable suture material was associated with an adhesion formation in distressing certainty, whereas no leakage or fistula formation could be observed at all. Further studies are needed to clarify the impact of serosal defect closure in particular on leakage rate and fistula formation, e.g., with pre-existing adhesions, in case of multiple serosal injuries or with a pre-existing peritonitis.

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. Tingstedt B, Isaksson J, Andersson R (2007) Long-term follow-up and cost analysis following surgery for small bowel obstruction caused by intra-abdominal adhesions. Br J Surg 94(6):743–748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tingstedt B, Andersson E, Isaksson K et al (2008) Clinical impact of abdominal adhesions: what is the magnitude of the problem? Scand J Gastroenterol 43(3):255–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar S, Wong PF, Leaper DJ. (2009) Intra-peritoneal prophylactic agents for preventing adhesions and adhesive intestinal obstruction after non-gynaecological abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD005080

  4. Rajab TK, Wallwiener M, Talukdar S et al (2009) Adhesion-related complications are common, but rarely discussed in preoperative consent: a multicenter study. World J Surg 33(4):748–750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sulaiman H, Gabella G, Davis MS et al (2001) Presence and distribution of sensory nerve fibers in human peritoneal adhesions. Ann Surg 234(2):256–261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sulaiman H, Gabella G, Davis C et al (2000) Growth of nerve fibres into murine peritoneal adhesions. J Pathol 192(3):396–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. diZerega GS (1997) Biochemical events in peritoneal tissue repair. Eur J Surg Suppl (577):10–16

  8. Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with Society of Reproductive Surgeons (2007) Pathogenesis, consequences, and control of peritoneal adhesions in gynecologic surgery. Fertil Steril 88(1):21–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Aydin C, Aytekin FO, Yenisey C et al (2008) The effect of different temporary abdominal closure techniques on fascial wound healing and postoperative adhesions in experimental secondary peritonitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 393(1):67–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Duron JJ (2007) Postoperative intraperitoneal adhesion pathophysiology. Colorectal Dis 9(Suppl 2):14–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hubbard TB Jr, Khan MZ, Carag VR Jr et al (1967) The pathology of peritoneal repair: its relation to the formation of adhesions. Ann Surg 165(6):908–916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosch R, Junge K, Binnebosel M et al (2008) Gas-related impact of pneumoperitoneum on systemic wound healing. Langenbecks Arch Surg 393(1):75–80

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Uludag M, Citgez B, Ozkaya O et al (2010) Effects of the amniotic membrane on healing of colonic anastomoses in experimental left-sided colonic obstruction. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395(5):535–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Campion JP, Nomikos J, Launois B (1988) Duodenal closure and esophagojejunostomy experience with mechanical stapling devices in total gastrectomy for cancer. Arch Surg 123(8):979–983

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Karabulut B, Sonmez K, Turkyilmaz Z et al (2006) Omentum prevents intestinal adhesions to mesh graft in abdominal infections and serosal defects. Surg Endosc 20:978–982

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Conze J, Junge K, Klinge U et al (2005) Intraabdominal adhesion formation of polypropylene mesh. Influence of coverage of omentum and polyglactin. Surg Endosc 19(6):798–803

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Angele MK, Chaudry IH (2005) Surgical trauma and immunosuppression: pathophysiology and potential immunomodulatory approaches. Langenbecks Arch Surg 390(4):333–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Flohe S, Flohe SB, Schade FU et al (2007) Immune response of severely injured patients—influence of surgical intervention and therapeutic impact. Langenbecks Arch Surg 392(5):639–648

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Matsukuma S, Goda K, Sakai Y et al (1999) Histopathologic studies of colorectal postendoscopic resection sites: "skipping electrothermal injury" associated with endoscopic resection procedures. Am J Surg Pathol 23(4):459–464

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Aarons CB, Cohen PA, Gower A et al (2007) Statins (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors) decrease postoperative adhesions by increasing peritoneal fibrinolytic activity. Ann Surg 245(2):176–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tang CL, Jayne DG, Seow-Choen F et al (2006) A randomized controlled trial of 0.5% ferric hyaluronate gel (Intergel) in the prevention of adhesions following abdominal surgery. Ann Surg 243(4):449–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zeng Q, Yu Z, You J et al (2007) Efficacy and safety of Seprafilm for preventing postoperative abdominal adhesion: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg 31(11):2125–2131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Luijendijk RW, de L, Wauters CC et al (1996) Foreign material in postoperative adhesions. Ann Surg 223(3):242–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sturdy JH, Baird RM, Gerein AN (1967) Surgical sponges: a cause of granuloma and adhesion formation. Ann Surg 165(1):128–134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Whitfield RR, Stills HF Jr, Huls HR et al (2007) Effects of peritoneal closure and suture material on adhesion formation in a rabbit model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(6):644–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bakkum EA, Dalmeijer RA, Verdel MJ et al (1995) Quantitative analysis of the inflammatory reaction surrounding sutures commonly used in operative procedures and the relation to postsurgical adhesion formation. Biomaterials 16(17):1283–1289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. O'Leary DP, Coakley JB (1992) The influence of suturing and sepsis on the development of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 74(2):134–137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Binnebosel M, Rosch R, Junge K et al (2008) Macrophage and T-lymphocyte infiltrates in human peritoneal adhesions indicate a chronic inflammatory disease. World J Surg 32(2):296–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Binnebosel M, Klinge U, Rosch R et al (2008) Morphology, quality, and composition in mature human peritoneal adhesions. Langenbecks Arch Surg 393(1):59–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoshino A, Kawamura YI, Yasuhara M et al (2007) Inhibition of CCL1–CCR8 interaction prevents aggregation of macrophages and development of peritoneal adhesions. J Immunol 178(8):5296–5304

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stumpf M, Junge K, Rosch R et al (2009) Suture-free small bowel anastomoses using collagen fleece covered with fibrin glue in pigs. J Invest Surg 22(2):138–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jonsson T, Hogstrom H (1992) Effect of suture technique on early healing of intestinal anastomoses in rats. Eur J Surg 158(5):267–270

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jonsson T, Hogstrom H (1991) Diathermy-induced inflammation does not affect suture holding capacity of intestinal anastomoses. Eur Surg Res 23(3-4):235–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jonsson T, Hogstrom H, Zederfeldt B (1993) Effect of interrupted and continuous suturing on intestinal wound margin strength in rats. Eur Surg Res 25(3):169–173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Mrs. E. Krott and Mr. F. Hölzl, M.D. for their most excellent and careful assistance during this investigation. Furthermore, we would like to thank S. Titkova, M.D., M. Anurov, M.D., M. Polivoda, M.D., and A. P. Öttinger, M.D., PhD (Joint Institute for Surgical Research, Russian State Medical University, Moscow, Russia) for their most excellent contributions to this project.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Marcel Binnebösel, Christian D. Klink, Marc Jansen, Ulf P. Neumann & Karsten Junge

  2. Department of Vascular Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany

    Jochen Grommes

Authors
  1. Marcel Binnebösel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian D. Klink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jochen Grommes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ulf P. Neumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Karsten Junge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcel Binnebösel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Binnebösel, M., Klink, C.D., Grommes, J. et al. Influence of small intestinal serosal defect closure on leakage rate and adhesion formation: a pilot study using rabbit models. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396, 133–137 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-010-0672-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-010-0672-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation