| Literature DB >> 30072707 |
Yingfeng An1,2,3, Yanchao Zhang2,4, Hao Liu2,4, Sijie Ma2,4, Shan Fu2,4, Yi Lv5,6, Xiaopeng Yan7,8.
Abstract
Rats are suitable animal models in which to study the effects of gastric bypass surgery. However, construction of gastrojejunal anastomosis in the rat is technically demanding and is associated with high rate of postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and efficacy of the magnetic compression technique (MCT) in side-to-side gastrojejunal anastomosis in rats. Thirty male rats underwent gastrojejunal anastomosis using one of three techniques: hand-sewn, magnetic compression using cuboid magnets, and magnetic compression using magnetic rings. The mean anastomosis time using the magnetic compression technique was significantly less than that of the hand-sewn technique (3.6 ± 0.96 and 6.50 ± 1.58 vs. 14.40 ± 2.37 minutes,). The survival rate was highest in animals treated with magnetic compression using cuboid magnets (100%), followed by animals treated with magnetic compression using magnetic rings (90%) and then hand sewing (70%). The mean burst pressure did not differ significantly between the magnetic compression and hand-sewn anastomoses. Anastomoses constructed by magnetic compression were smoother and flatter than hand-sewn anastomoses. The results showed that MCT is a simple and feasible method for gastrojejunal anastomosis in the rat.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30072707 PMCID: PMC6072768 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-30075-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Gross appearance of the anastomosis performed by magnetic compression technique using cuboid magnets (A,B,C).
Figure 2Gross appearance of anastomosis created by magnetic compression technique using magnetic rings (A,B,C,D).
The size of gastrojejunostomy in each group.
| Expected size | Actual size | The rate of change, % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCT-A | Cuboid, | D = 5.07 ± 0.11 mm, | |
| n = 10 | Sa = 20.88 mm2 | Sb = 20.17 ± 0.91 mm2 | −3.40c |
| MCT-B | Ring, | D = 6.05 ± 0.08 mm, | |
| n = 9 | Sd = 28.26 mm2 | Se = 28.74 ± 0.78 mm2 | +1.70f |
| Hand-sewn | D = 6.50, | D = 7.06 ± 1.35 mm, | |
| n = 7 | Sg = 33.17 mm2 | Sh = 40.38 ± 14.42 mm2 | +21.7i |
aMCT-A: The length, width and height of the cuboid magnets was 7.20 mm, 2.90 mm, 1.60 mm, respectively. The anastomosis size of expected was 20.88 mm2;
bMCT-A: The diameter of anastomotic was 5.07 ± 0.11 mm, so the actual anastomosis size was 20.17 ± 0.91 mm2;
cMCT-A: The rate of change = Sb–Sa/Sa;
dMCT-B: The outside diameter of the magnetic ring was 6 mm, so the anastomosis size of expected was 28.26 mm2;
eMCT-B: The diameter of anastomotic was 6.05 ± 0.08 mm, so the actual anastomosis size was 28.74 ± 0.78 mm2;
fMCT-B: The rate of change = Se–Sd/Sd;
gHand-sewn: The diameter of rats’ jejunum was approximately 6.5 mm, and the cross-sectional area of the jejunum is taken as the expected size of the anastomosis. The anastomosis size of expected was 33.17 mm2;
hHand-sewn: The diameter of anastomotic was 7.06 ± 1.35 mm, so the actual anastomosis size was 40.38 ± 14.42 mm2;
iThe rate of change = Sh–Sg/Sg.
Figure 3Representative histologic sections of the anastomotic sites of the study and control groups, one month after surgery (H&E & Masson’s, 40x). (A,B) MCT-A group: the mucosal layer was continuous with a relatively smooth surface and less collagen content in the muscular layer. (C,D) MCT-B group: Mucosal, submucosal and muscular with good continuity. (E,F) Hand-sewn group: mucosal continuity was slightly worse, the mucosal layer was continuous with presence of silk-related foreign body granulomas and mild inflammatory infiltration in the muscular and serous layer along with dense collagen deposition.
Figure 4The magnetic device (A), cuboid magnets (B), parent magnet (PM) ring and daughter magnet (DM) ring.
Figure 5The MCT-A group surgical procedure. (A) The magnet is introduced through the mouth into the stomach; (B) The magnet is further pushed into the jejunum; (C) The second magnet is pushed into the stomach through the mouth; (D) The two magnets are attracted to one another; E: 5–10 days after surgery, the magnets are expelled from the rat.
Figure 6(A) The two cuboid magnets are attracted to one another; (B) Abdominal fluoroscopy shows the position of the magnets.
Figure 7The magnetic ring surgical procedure. (A) The daughter magnetic ring is placed into the jejunum, and the parent magnetic ring into the stomach through an incision in the stomach wall; (B) The parent magnetic ring is adjusted such that the central tube of the magnetic ring projects through the stomach wall; (C) The parent and daughter magnetic rings are attracted to one another; (D) 7–12 days after surgery, the parent and daughter magnetic rings are expelled.
Figure 8(A) The parent magnetic ring and the daughter magnetic ring; (B) The parent and daughter magnetic ring are attracted to one another; (C) Abdominal fluoroscopy shows the position of the magnetic rings; (D) Upper gastrointestinal contrast radiography showed anastomotic patency.