PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of becaplermin on normal and ischemic colon anastomoses. METHODS: Forty adult male Wistar-Albino rats were divided into four equal groups of ten. All rats underwent standard left colon resection and end-to-end anastomosis. The groups were as follows: Group 1, normal anastomosis alone; Group 2, ischemic anastomosis alone; Group 3, normal anastomosis and becaplermin therapy; and Group 4, ischemic anastomosis and becaplermin therapy. All animals were killed on postoperative Day 4. Intra-abdominal adhesions were scored, and anastomotic healing was evaluated with both in situ bursting pressure and hydroxyproline levels. RESULTS: According to bursting pressure results, there was a significant difference between Group 2 and Group 4 (P < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 3 (P > 0.05). Hydroxyproline values revealed no statistically significant difference among any of the groups (P > 0.05). With regard to intra-abdominal adhesion scores, Group 3 had significantly lower values than Group 2 and Group 4 (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed between the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Detrimental effects of ischemia on colonic anastomotic healing were reversed with becaplermin therapy. However, there was no such benefit on nonischemic anastomoses. Intra-abdominal application of this gel did not lead to an increase in intra-abdominal adhesion formation.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of becaplermin on normal and ischemic colon anastomoses. METHODS: Forty adult male Wistar-Albino rats were divided into four equal groups of ten. All rats underwent standard left colon resection and end-to-end anastomosis. The groups were as follows: Group 1, normal anastomosis alone; Group 2, ischemic anastomosis alone; Group 3, normal anastomosis and becaplermin therapy; and Group 4, ischemic anastomosis and becaplermin therapy. All animals were killed on postoperative Day 4. Intra-abdominal adhesions were scored, and anastomotic healing was evaluated with both in situ bursting pressure and hydroxyproline levels. RESULTS: According to bursting pressure results, there was a significant difference between Group 2 and Group 4 (P < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 3 (P > 0.05). Hydroxyproline values revealed no statistically significant difference among any of the groups (P > 0.05). With regard to intra-abdominal adhesion scores, Group 3 had significantly lower values than Group 2 and Group 4 (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed between the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Detrimental effects of ischemia on colonic anastomotic healing were reversed with becaplermin therapy. However, there was no such benefit on nonischemic anastomoses. Intra-abdominal application of this gel did not lead to an increase in intra-abdominal adhesion formation.
Authors: Mari Nanna Oines; Peter-Martin Krarup; Lars Nannestad Jorgensen; Magnus Sven Agren Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-09-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Ali Kemal Kayapınar; Metin Ercan; Kadir Koray Baş; Seda Yamak; Uğur Erçin; Mehmet Akif Türkoğlu; Erdal Birol Bostancı Journal: Turk J Med Sci Date: 2021-08-30 Impact factor: 0.973