BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) pneumoperitoneum and wound closure technique on port site tumor implantation. METHODS: A standard quantity of rat mammary adenocarcinoma (SMT2A)was allowed to grow in a flank incision in Wistar-Furth rats (n = 90) for 14 days. Thereafter, 1-cm incisions were made in each animal in three quadrants. There were six control animals. The experimental animals were divided into a 60-min CO2 pneumoperitoneum group (n = 42) and a no pneumoperitoneum (n = 42) group. The flank tumor was lacerated transabdominally in the experimental groups. The three wound sites were randomized to closure of (a) skin; (b) skin and fascia; and (c) skin, fascia, and peritoneum. The abdominal wounds were harvested en bloc on postoperative day 7. RESULTS: Histologic comparison of the port sites in the pneumoperitoneum and no-pneumoperitoneum groups did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in tumor implantation for any of the closure methods. Evaluation of the closure techniques showed no statistical difference between the pneumoperitoneum group and the no-pneumoperitoneum group in the incidence of port site tumor implantation. Within the no-pneumoperitoneum group, there was a significant increase (p = 0.03) in tumor implantation with skin closure alone vs all three layers. Additionally, when we compared all groups by closure technique, the rate of tumor implantation was found to be significantly higher (p = 0.01) for skin closure alone vs closure of all three layers. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that closure technique may influence the rate of port site tumor implantation. The use of a CO2 pneumoperitoneum did not alter the incidence of port site tumor implantation at 7 days postoperatively.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) pneumoperitoneum and wound closure technique on port site tumor implantation. METHODS: A standard quantity of rat mammary adenocarcinoma (SMT2A)was allowed to grow in a flank incision in Wistar-Furth rats (n = 90) for 14 days. Thereafter, 1-cm incisions were made in each animal in three quadrants. There were six control animals. The experimental animals were divided into a 60-min CO2 pneumoperitoneum group (n = 42) and a no pneumoperitoneum (n = 42) group. The flank tumor was lacerated transabdominally in the experimental groups. The three wound sites were randomized to closure of (a) skin; (b) skin and fascia; and (c) skin, fascia, and peritoneum. The abdominal wounds were harvested en bloc on postoperative day 7. RESULTS: Histologic comparison of the port sites in the pneumoperitoneum and no-pneumoperitoneum groups did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in tumor implantation for any of the closure methods. Evaluation of the closure techniques showed no statistical difference between the pneumoperitoneum group and the no-pneumoperitoneum group in the incidence of port site tumor implantation. Within the no-pneumoperitoneum group, there was a significant increase (p = 0.03) in tumor implantation with skin closure alone vs all three layers. Additionally, when we compared all groups by closure technique, the rate of tumor implantation was found to be significantly higher (p = 0.01) for skin closure alone vs closure of all three layers. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that closure technique may influence the rate of port site tumor implantation. The use of a CO2 pneumoperitoneum did not alter the incidence of port site tumor implantation at 7 days postoperatively.
Authors: C A Schiavon; W M Pollara; R G Bevilacqua; R N Younes; T B Vieira da Motta; R V Cohen; M Itinoshe; L H Takasaka; D Birolini Journal: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 1.719
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P Vukasin; A E Ortega; F L Greene; G D Steele; A J Simons; G J Anthone; L A Weston; R W Beart Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: D B Jones; L W Guo; M K Reinhard; N J Soper; G W Philpott; J Connett; J W Fleshman Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1995-11 Impact factor: 4.585