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.
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 ratcolon 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.