Rapidly resorbable vs. non-resorbable suture for experimental colonic anastomoses in rats – A randomized experimental study

An Experimental Study on the Use of Calcium Alginate to Heal Colonic Anastomoses

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is considered the major complication following abdominal surgery. In recent years, the use of a variety of sealing materials for the prevention of leaks has been analyzed. Different biomaterials have been employed as scaffolds to favour tissue repair and regeneration. Among these materials we must mention alginate, a natural polymer with different applications as temporary supporting matrix. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the behavior of both alginate-impregnated sutures and lyophilized alginate sponges in the healing process of colonic anastomes using an experimental animal model.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A preliminary study was undertaken to select the adequate scaffold. Animals (n = 45) were distributed into three groups: control (colonic anastomosis using non-continuous 5-0 Polyglactin 910 suture), suture (colonic anastomosis using suture impregnated with alginate gel at 4%) and sponge (colonic anastomosis using suture reinforced with lyophilized alginate sponge). The macroscopic and histological variables were assessed at 4, 8 and 12 days after surgical intervention.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences have been observed between the groups during the analysis of macroscopic variables. Animals with sponge implantation showed a greater degree of epithelial reepithalization, less acute and chronic inflammation and greater collagen deposit.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of lyophilized alginate sponges to reinforce colonic anastomoses in an animal model reduces inflammation and promotes the earlier formation of greater collagen deposits without increasing the number of adhesions or the incidence of stenosis.

Advantages of the experimental animal hollow organ mechanical testing system for the rat colon rupture pressure test

BACKGROUND

Many studies have been conducted on colorectal anastomotic leakage to reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage. However, how to precisely determine if the bowel can withstand the pressure of a colorectal anastomosis experiment, which is called anastomotic bursting pressure, has not been determined.

METHOD

A task force developed the experimental animal hollow organ mechanical testing system to provide precise measurement of the maximum pressure that an anastomotic colon can withstand, and to compare it with the commonly used method such as the mercury and air bag pressure manometer in a rat colon rupture pressure test. Forty-five male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into the manual ball manometry (H) group, the tracing machine manometry pressure gauge head (MP) group, and the experimental animal hollow organ mechanical testing system (ME) group. The rats in each group were subjected to a cut colon rupture pressure test after injecting anesthesia in the tail vein. Colonic end-to-end anastomosis was performed, and the rats were rested for 1 week before anastomotic bursting pressure was determined by one of the three methods.

RESULTS

No differences were observed between the normal colon rupture pressure and colonic anastomotic bursting pressure, which were determined using the three manometry methods. However, several advantages, such as reduction in errors, were identified in the ME group.

CONCLUSION

Different types of manometry methods can be applied to the normal rat colon, but the colonic anastomotic bursting pressure test using the experimental animal hollow organ mechanical testing system is superior to traditional methods.