Evaluation of intestinal wall closure using vessel-sealing technology versus conventional closure: an in vivo study.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Surgery Today Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1007/s00595-024-02961-4
Toshio Shiraishi, Takashi Nonaka, Tetsuro Tominaga, Shintaro Hashimoto, Hiroshi Maruta, Keisuke Noda, Terumitsu Sawai, Keitaro Matsumoto
{"title":"Evaluation of intestinal wall closure using vessel-sealing technology versus conventional closure: an in vivo study.","authors":"Toshio Shiraishi, Takashi Nonaka, Tetsuro Tominaga, Shintaro Hashimoto, Hiroshi Maruta, Keisuke Noda, Terumitsu Sawai, Keitaro Matsumoto","doi":"10.1007/s00595-024-02961-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Anastomotic leakage is a major postoperative complication of colorectal surgery. LigaSure™ is used commonly for vessel-sealing, but its use for intestinal anastomosis or closure, particularly the healing process, is underreported. We conducted this study to evaluate the feasibility of using LigaSure™ for intestinal wall closure, compared with hand-sewn methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed intestinal wall closure of the cecum in rat laparotomy procedures, dividing subjects into a LigaSure™ group (LS) and a hand-sewn group (HS). We compared operation times, tissue structure changes, and pressure resistance from immediately post-operatively to postoperative day (POD) 14.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No postoperative dehiscence or mortality occurred in either group. The LS group required significantly less closure time (113 s) than the HS group (321 s, p < 0.001). The adhesion rates for a midline incision were not significantly different between the groups (LS: 26.7% vs. HS: 6.7%; p = 0.142), with adhesions at the closure site seen in all subjects. The LS group had a lower burst pressure than the HS group until POD 3, with no significant differences thereafter. Structural continuity was established by POD 5 in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LigaSure™ provides effective intestinal wall closure with a more distinct healing process than with hand-sewn methods, suggesting the potential for staple-free anastomosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":22163,"journal":{"name":"Surgery Today","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery Today","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-024-02961-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Anastomotic leakage is a major postoperative complication of colorectal surgery. LigaSure™ is used commonly for vessel-sealing, but its use for intestinal anastomosis or closure, particularly the healing process, is underreported. We conducted this study to evaluate the feasibility of using LigaSure™ for intestinal wall closure, compared with hand-sewn methods.

Methods: We performed intestinal wall closure of the cecum in rat laparotomy procedures, dividing subjects into a LigaSure™ group (LS) and a hand-sewn group (HS). We compared operation times, tissue structure changes, and pressure resistance from immediately post-operatively to postoperative day (POD) 14.

Results: No postoperative dehiscence or mortality occurred in either group. The LS group required significantly less closure time (113 s) than the HS group (321 s, p < 0.001). The adhesion rates for a midline incision were not significantly different between the groups (LS: 26.7% vs. HS: 6.7%; p = 0.142), with adhesions at the closure site seen in all subjects. The LS group had a lower burst pressure than the HS group until POD 3, with no significant differences thereafter. Structural continuity was established by POD 5 in both groups.

Conclusions: LigaSure™ provides effective intestinal wall closure with a more distinct healing process than with hand-sewn methods, suggesting the potential for staple-free anastomosis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估使用血管密封技术与传统闭合技术进行肠壁闭合的效果:一项体内研究。
目的:吻合口漏是结直肠手术的主要术后并发症。LigaSure™ 常用于血管密封,但用于肠道吻合或闭合,特别是愈合过程的报道却很少。我们进行了这项研究,以评估使用 LigaSure™ 进行肠壁缝合的可行性,并与手工缝合方法进行比较:我们在大鼠开腹手术中对盲肠进行了肠壁闭合,将受试者分为 LigaSure™ 组(LS)和手缝组(HS)。我们比较了从术后即刻到术后第 14 天(POD)的手术时间、组织结构变化和压力阻力:结果:两组均未发生术后开裂或死亡。结果:两组均未发生术后开裂或死亡,LS 组所需的闭合时间(113 秒)明显少于 HS 组(321 秒,P 结论:LS 组所需的闭合时间明显少于 HS 组:与手缝方法相比,LigaSure™ 能有效缝合肠壁,且愈合过程更加明显,这表明无钉吻合术具有潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Surgery Today
Surgery Today 医学-外科
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
208
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Surgery Today is the official journal of the Japan Surgical Society. The main purpose of the journal is to provide a place for the publication of high-quality papers documenting recent advances and new developments in all fields of surgery, both clinical and experimental. The journal welcomes original papers, review articles, and short communications, as well as short technical reports("How to do it"). The "How to do it" section will includes short articles on methods or techniques recommended for practical surgery. Papers submitted to the journal are reviewed by an international editorial board. Field of interest: All fields of surgery.
期刊最新文献
The assessment of adjuvant chemotherapy benefits after D3 lymphadenectomy in patients with colon cancer: a propensity score matching study. Learning curve of consolers and bedside surgeons fused robotic-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy: insights from the initial 100 cases. Mechanisms of polyglycolic acid sheet-induced abdominal wall adhesions in hamsters. Evaluation of intestinal wall closure using vessel-sealing technology versus conventional closure: an in vivo study. Postoperative pain management using high-dose oral acetaminophen for enhanced recovery after colorectal cancer surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1