BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been speculation about the possibility of fusing intestinal tissue using bipolar sealing devices. In this study we compare in a porcine model the anastomoses created using the LigaSure(®) device with those created with a stapler after section and closure of a rectal stump. METHODS: Thirty pigs underwent laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis. In group A (n = 15), the division of the intestine and distal stump closure were done with a 10-mm LigaSure Atlas(®) device. In group B, these steps were carried out using an endoscopic stapler. Subsequently, the colorectal anastomosis was performed using circular stapling in both groups. The 4-week follow-up included health status, weight gain, blood tests, X-rays, and colonoscopy. Anastomotic tissue was processed to study the mechanical tensile strength and histopathology. RESULTS: There was no difference in the rate of conversion to open surgery or in average operating time between the groups. In the sealing device group, there was a significantly higher rate of failure in rectal stump closure (p = 0.042). There was one death in group B due to anastomotic leak. There was no difference in adhesion formation or stenosis. Mid-section anastomosis area was 89.7 mm(2) in group A compared with 100 mm(2) in group B (p = 0.52). In tensile strength studies, the maximum load resisted by the sample was 13.8 ± 4.9 N (group A) versus 15.7 ± 4.4 N (group B) (p = 0.17). There was no difference between the groups in degree of reepithelialization, number of inflammatory cells, or the presence of microabscesses. CONCLUSIONS: Division and sealing of the rectal stump with the LigaSure(®) device is feasible in the proposed experimental model, but it is less reliable than conventional closure with a stapler, since it has a significantly greater failure rate. Therefore, The LigaSure(®) device should not be used for this purpose in the clinical setting as this could lead to serious and dramatic complications.
BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been speculation about the possibility of fusing intestinal tissue using bipolar sealing devices. In this study we compare in a porcine model the anastomoses created using the LigaSure(®) device with those created with a stapler after section and closure of a rectal stump. METHODS: Thirty pigs underwent laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis. In group A (n = 15), the division of the intestine and distal stump closure were done with a 10-mm LigaSure Atlas(®) device. In group B, these steps were carried out using an endoscopic stapler. Subsequently, the colorectal anastomosis was performed using circular stapling in both groups. The 4-week follow-up included health status, weight gain, blood tests, X-rays, and colonoscopy. Anastomotic tissue was processed to study the mechanical tensile strength and histopathology. RESULTS: There was no difference in the rate of conversion to open surgery or in average operating time between the groups. In the sealing device group, there was a significantly higher rate of failure in rectal stump closure (p = 0.042). There was one death in group B due to anastomotic leak. There was no difference in adhesion formation or stenosis. Mid-section anastomosis area was 89.7 mm(2) in group A compared with 100 mm(2) in group B (p = 0.52). In tensile strength studies, the maximum load resisted by the sample was 13.8 ± 4.9 N (group A) versus 15.7 ± 4.4 N (group B) (p = 0.17). There was no difference between the groups in degree of reepithelialization, number of inflammatory cells, or the presence of microabscesses. CONCLUSIONS: Division and sealing of the rectal stump with the LigaSure(®) device is feasible in the proposed experimental model, but it is less reliable than conventional closure with a stapler, since it has a significantly greater failure rate. Therefore, The LigaSure(®) device should not be used for this purpose in the clinical setting as this could lead to serious and dramatic complications.
Authors: João Eduardo Marques Tavares de Menezes Ettinger; Almino C Ramos; Euler Azaro; Manoel P Galvão-Neto; Carlos A B Mello; Manoela S Galvão; Paulo C G Amaral; Andrei Carlo; Edvaldo Fahel Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Hanno Winter; Christoph Holmer; Heinz-Johannes Buhr; Gerd Lindner; Roland Lauster; Marc Kraft; Jörg-Peter Ritz Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Christian W Wallwiener; Taufiek K Rajab; Wolfgang Zubke; Keith B Isaacson; Markus Enderle; Daniel Schäller; Markus Wallwiener Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2008-07-21 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Tobias Gehrig; A T Billeter; A L Wekerle; M Shevchenko; K Brand; B P Müller-Stich Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Joanna W A M Bosmans; Martine Moossdorff; Mahdi Al-Taher; Lotte van Beek; Joep P M Derikx; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 2.571