Literature DB >> 35157121

Evaluation of sutureless anastomosis after ileostomy takedown using the self-forming magnet anastomosis system in a porcine model.

Ana Sofia Ore1, Erik Askenasy2, Marvin Ryou3, Thomas Baldwin4, Christopher C Thompson3, Evangelos Messaris5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current standard of care for creation of small bowel anastomoses after a loop ileostomy reversal includes the use of stapler devices and sutures. Compression anastomosis devices have been used for decades, aimed toward improved outcomes with a "staple free" & "suture free" anastomosis. The self-forming magnet (SFM) device is a type of compression anastomosis device used to safely and effectively create an end-to-end small bowel anastomosis without the localized inflammatory response seen with sutures or staples, as no foreign bodies are left behind.
METHODS: A Good Laboratory Practice preclinical study using a porcine model to evaluate creating an in vivo anastomosis via magnetic compression between two segments of small bowel (jejunum or ileum) was performed. Magnetic anastomoses were compared to stapled and handsewn anastomoses. Six animals were used for the magnetic anastomosis and eight for the two control groups for a total of 14 subjects.
RESULTS: Mean creation times were 17.1 min (SD 6.06) for the SFM group, 10.3 min (SD 6.55, CI 95%) for the stapled anastomosis group, and 28.3 min (SD 2.63, CI 95%) for the suture anastomosis group, with a statistically significant difference among groups (p < 0.0021). All evaluated SFM anastomosis, stapled anastomosis, and handsewn anastomosis underwent a burst test with a pressure of 1.3 PSI. All six magnets used for anastomoses were naturally expelled. The range of days to expel magnets was 10-17 days. Intestinal anastomoses using magnets had considerably less residual scarring and intestinal distortion than anastomoses done with either suture or staples.
CONCLUSION: This preclinical study documents the safety and efficacy of creating end-to-end small bowel anastomoses after ileostomy takedown using a magnetic compression device. The result is an anastomosis free of foreign objects with less inflammation, scarring, distortion, and mural thickening than seen in sutured or stapled anastomoses.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic compression device; Self-forming magnets (SFM); Small bowel anastomosis; Staple free anastomosis

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35157121     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09082-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   3.453


  8 in total

1.  Compression anastomosis (AKA-2) in colorectal surgery: results in 442 consecutive patients.

Authors:  C Wullstein; E Gross
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 2.  Compression gastrointestinal anastomosis.

Authors:  Doron Kopelman; Ossama A Hatoum; Boaz Kimmel; Leonid Monassevitch; Yael Nir; Shlomo Lelcuk; Micha Rabau; Amir Szold
Journal:  Expert Rev Med Devices       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.166

3.  Magnetic Compression Anastomosis (Magnamosis): First-In-Human Trial.

Authors:  Claire E Graves; Catherine Co; Ryan S Hsi; Dillon Kwiat; Jill Imamura-Ching; Michael R Harrison; Marshall L Stoller
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 4.  The experimental basis of intestinal suturing. Effect of surgical technique, inflammation, and infection on enteric wound healing.

Authors:  G H Ballantyne
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures. A possible factor in suture induced infection.

Authors:  S Katz; M Izhar; D Mirelman
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1981-07       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 6.  Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses.

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

7.  Risk factors for anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery: a case-control study.

Authors:  Dana A Telem; Edward H Chin; Scott Q Nguyen; Celia M Divino
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2010-04

Review 8.  Porcine models of digestive disease: the future of large animal translational research.

Authors:  Liara M Gonzalez; Adam J Moeser; Anthony T Blikslager
Journal:  Transl Res       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 7.012

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.