Experimental rationale for colocolonic anastomosis formation by a compression suturing device

Abstract

Aim. To experimentally compare the durability and biological integrity of compressional and manually made anastomoses, and to find out morphological features of their regeneration. Methods. Experimental studies were performed on 54 non-pedigree dogs of both gender and on autopsied specimens in prosectorium. Colocolonic anastomoses were formed by compression suturing device, Ziganshin-Gunter device, compression anastomosis device, and manually. Results. Compression anastomoses had higher durability compared to manual sutures (р <0.05). A test for microbial penetration showed only minimal signs of bacterial contamination of colocolonic anastomoses made by compression suturing device. Bacterial contamination of colocolonic anastomoses performed by compression anastomosis device and compression suturing device, was significantly less common compared to anastomoses formed by Ziganshin-Gunter device and manually (р <0.05). Examination of compression anastomoses morphogenesis revealed that healing of colocolonic anastomoses is accompanied by homogenous standard morphologic pattern. No scarring occurs due to absence of inflammation and low amount of connective tissue at the anastomosis region. Study of colocolonic anastomoses formation by compression devices on an autopsied specimens confirmed the opportunity for anastomosis formation on any part of colon. Conclusion. Compression colocolonic anastomosis formed by compression suturing device is characterized by low bacterial permeability, provides good durability and does not cause scarring in the anastomosis region. Revealed advantages of compression colonic suture allow recommending it for clinical use.

Keywords

colonic suture / compression anastomosis / compression suturing device

References

[1] Гатауллин И.Г., Городнов С.В., Жинов А.В. Профилактика послеоперационных гемореологических и гемоциркуляторных нарушений у больных колоректальным раком // Вопр. онкол. - 2013. - Т. 59, прил. к №3. - С. 564.

[2] Кипель В.С., Запорожец А.А., Шотт А.В. Теоретические основы кишечного шва // Здравоохранение. - 2004. - №2. - С. 2-6.

[3] Коновалов Д.Ю., Каган И.И., Есипов В.К. и др. Клиническая и эндоскопическая оценка заживления микрохирургических анастомозов ободочной кишки // Морфология. - 2008. - Т. 134, №5. - С. 75.

[4] Молокова О.А., Баженов Д.В., Соловьёв Г.С. Морфогенез провизорного органа-регенерата при компрессионных анастомозах пищеварительного канала // Морфология - 2011. - Т. 140, №5. - С. 101.

[5] Шотт А.В., Запорожец А.А., Клинцевич В.Ю. Кишечный шов. - Минск: Беларусь, 1983. - 159 с.

[6] Bretagnol F., Troubat H., Laurent C. et al. Long-term functional results after sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer // Gastroenterol. Clin. Biol. - 2004. - Vol. 28. - Р. 155-159.

[7] Forshaw M.J., Maphosa G., Sankararajah D. et al. Endoscopic alternatives in managing anastomotic strictures of the colon and rectum // Tech. coloproctol. - 2006. - Vol. 10. - P. 21-27.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Vlasov A.A.