Dan Ye1,2, Miao-Miao Zhang1,3, Ai-Hua Shi3, Wen-Wen Chen4, Hui-Min Gao5, Jia-Hui Zhang5, Wei-Chen Shen4, Yi Lyu1,3, Xiao-Peng Yan6,7. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, China. 2. Department of Dermatology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. 3. National and Local Joint Engineering Research Center of Precision Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, China. 4. Qide College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. 5. Zonglian College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. 6. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, China. yanxiaopeng99@163.com. 7. National and Local Joint Engineering Research Center of Precision Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, China. yanxiaopeng99@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The magnetic compression technique (MCT) is a new surgical method that has been used for gastrointestinal anastomosis, choledochojejunostomy, and intestinal anastomosis, but there are no reports on its use for esophagogastric anastomosis. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of using MCT to fashion esophagogastric anastomoses in rabbits. METHODS: Twenty rabbits were randomized into an MCT group (study group, n = 10) and a hand-sewn group (control group, n = 10). The magnetic compression anastomosis device used in this study was made of neodymium iron boron (NdFeB) and possessed parent (PMR) and daughter (DMR) magnetic rings. To fashion the anastomosis, the PMR and DMR were inserted into the lower esophagus and gastric fundus, respectively. The coupled magnets automatically compressed the sandwiched tissues and were expelled once the anastomosis was installed. The two groups were further compared in terms of the anastomosis construction time, survival rate, and postoperative complications. One month after the anastomosis was installed, the burst pressure and gross appearance of the anastomoses were evaluated. RESULTS: The anastomosis construction time in the study group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (10.50 ± 1.58 min vs. 18.60 ± 2.22 min; P < 0.05), and the magnetic rings were defecated out in 10.70 ± 3.49 days. The incidence of anastomotic blockage in both the study and control groups did not differ significantly (0%, 0/10 vs. 20%, 2/10; P > 0.05). Anastomotic leakage was not found in either of the groups, and the anastomoses burst pressures were similar in the two groups. However, the magnetically compressed anastomoses in the study group had a relatively smoother gross appearance than the hand-sewn anastomoses. CONCLUSION: The magnetic compression anastomosis device is a safe and feasible tool for fashioning esophagogastric anastomoses in this animal model.
PURPOSE: The magnetic compression technique (MCT) is a new surgical method that has been used for gastrointestinal anastomosis, choledochojejunostomy, and intestinal anastomosis, but there are no reports on its use for esophagogastric anastomosis. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of using MCT to fashion esophagogastric anastomoses in rabbits. METHODS: Twenty rabbits were randomized into an MCT group (study group, n = 10) and a hand-sewn group (control group, n = 10). The magnetic compression anastomosis device used in this study was made of neodymium iron boron (NdFeB) and possessed parent (PMR) and daughter (DMR) magnetic rings. To fashion the anastomosis, the PMR and DMR were inserted into the lower esophagus and gastric fundus, respectively. The coupled magnets automatically compressed the sandwiched tissues and were expelled once the anastomosis was installed. The two groups were further compared in terms of the anastomosis construction time, survival rate, and postoperative complications. One month after the anastomosis was installed, the burst pressure and gross appearance of the anastomoses were evaluated. RESULTS: The anastomosis construction time in the study group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (10.50 ± 1.58 min vs. 18.60 ± 2.22 min; P < 0.05), and the magnetic rings were defecated out in 10.70 ± 3.49 days. The incidence of anastomotic blockage in both the study and control groups did not differ significantly (0%, 0/10 vs. 20%, 2/10; P > 0.05). Anastomotic leakage was not found in either of the groups, and the anastomoses burst pressures were similar in the two groups. However, the magnetically compressed anastomoses in the study group had a relatively smoother gross appearance than the hand-sewn anastomoses. CONCLUSION: The magnetic compression anastomosis device is a safe and feasible tool for fashioning esophagogastric anastomoses in this animal model.