Tobias Gehrig1,2, A T Billeter3, A L Wekerle3, M Shevchenko3, K Brand4, B P Müller-Stich3. 1. Department of General Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. tobias.gehrig@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. Department of General, Abdominal and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. tobias.gehrig@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 3. Department of General Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 220/221, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study is to assess the value of the LigaSure™ Vessel Sealing System (LVSS) as a means for bowel transection and intestinal anastomosis. METHODS: We compared the LVSS for (1) transecting bowel and (2) creation of an intestinal anastomosis with standard methods such as stapler (S) and hand-sewn (HS) in a porcine model. For each study arm, i.e., bowel transection and anastomosis creation, both the small bowel and colon were examined. In total, ten transections and ten anastomoses were performed for each. Burst and anastomotic leak pressures were compared. RESULTS: In the study arm 1, LVSS achieved lowest burst pressures in both small bowel (LVSS 39.8 ± 3.6 mmHg, S 81.9 ± 3.9, HS 111.9 ± 14.7 mmHg, p < 0.0001) and colon transections (LVSS 21.5 ± 2.6 mmHg, S 79.5 ± 4.9, HS 91.0 ± 5.2 mmHg, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in burst pressures between S and HS in both small bowel and colon transections. In the study arm 2, LVSS showed the lowest anastomotic leak pressures for small bowel (LVSS 26.4 ± 2.6 mmHg, S 52.1 ± 6.2, HS 87.4 ± 7.0 mmHg, p < 0.0001) and colonic anastomoses (LVSS 16.9 ± 1.3 mmHg, S 55.9 ± 4.3, HS 74.4 ± 4.4 mmHg, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, small bowel and colonic anastomoses using S demonstrated significantly lower leak pressures than HS anastomosis p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The LVSS achieves significantly lower burst pressures and anastomotic leak pressures for bowel transection and intestinal anastomosis than S and HS techniques. However, due to the achieved pressure levels of 39.8 ± 3.6 mmHg, LVSS appears to be a sufficient stand-alone method for bowel transection. Whether it can be used to perform intestinal anastomosis warrants further research in a survival model.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study is to assess the value of the LigaSure™ Vessel Sealing System (LVSS) as a means for bowel transection and intestinal anastomosis. METHODS: We compared the LVSS for (1) transecting bowel and (2) creation of an intestinal anastomosis with standard methods such as stapler (S) and hand-sewn (HS) in a porcine model. For each study arm, i.e., bowel transection and anastomosis creation, both the small bowel and colon were examined. In total, ten transections and ten anastomoses were performed for each. Burst and anastomotic leak pressures were compared. RESULTS: In the study arm 1, LVSS achieved lowest burst pressures in both small bowel (LVSS 39.8 ± 3.6 mmHg, S 81.9 ± 3.9, HS 111.9 ± 14.7 mmHg, p < 0.0001) and colon transections (LVSS 21.5 ± 2.6 mmHg, S 79.5 ± 4.9, HS 91.0 ± 5.2 mmHg, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in burst pressures between S and HS in both small bowel and colon transections. In the study arm 2, LVSS showed the lowest anastomotic leak pressures for small bowel (LVSS 26.4 ± 2.6 mmHg, S 52.1 ± 6.2, HS 87.4 ± 7.0 mmHg, p < 0.0001) and colonic anastomoses (LVSS 16.9 ± 1.3 mmHg, S 55.9 ± 4.3, HS 74.4 ± 4.4 mmHg, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, small bowel and colonic anastomoses using S demonstrated significantly lower leak pressures than HS anastomosis p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The LVSS achieves significantly lower burst pressures and anastomotic leak pressures for bowel transection and intestinal anastomosis than S and HS techniques. However, due to the achieved pressure levels of 39.8 ± 3.6 mmHg, LVSS appears to be a sufficient stand-alone method for bowel transection. Whether it can be used to perform intestinal anastomosis warrants further research in a survival model.
Authors: Reawika Chaikomin; Keng Liang Wu; Selena Doran; Karen L Jones; Andre J P M Smout; Willem Renooij; Richard H Holloway; James H Meyer; Michael Horowitz; Christopher K Rayner Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2007-01-04 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: Pietro Contin; Käthe Gooßen; Kathrin Grummich; Katrin Jensen; Hubertus Schmitz-Winnenthal; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2013-11-16 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Francisco Sánchez-De Pedro; Carlos Moreno-Sanz; Antonio Morandeira-Rivas; Jose María Tenías-Burillo; Cristina Alhambra-Rodríguez De Guzmán Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Pui Yee Grace Choy; Ian P Bissett; James G Docherty; Bryan R Parry; Arend Merrie; Anita Fitzgerald Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-09-07
Authors: Marilyn L Rumbaugh; Daniel J Burba; Claudio Natalini; Giselle Hosgood; Rustin M Moore Journal: Vet Surg Date: 2003 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.495