• This record comes from PubMed

Suture-free anastomosis of the colon. Experimental comparison of two cyanoacrylate adhesives

. 2011 Mar ; 15 (3) : 451-9. [epub] 20110113

Language English Country Netherlands Media print-electronic

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Links

PubMed 21229329
DOI 10.1007/s11605-010-1370-0
PII: S1091-255X(23)05909-7
Knihovny.cz E-resources

BACKGROUND: We explored the potential of two cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives for constructing colonic anastomoses. METHOD: The study involved 12 female domestic pigs. The animals were divided into two equal groups. In both groups, the sigmoid colon was transected. An intestinal anastomosis was constructed with a modified circular stapler (all staples were withdrawn) and cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives. Glubran 2 was used in group A and Dermabond was applied in group B. Fourteen days after the first operation, a follow-up surgery was performed in both groups. The glued section of the colon was resected, processed with the standard paraffin technique and stained with haematoxylin-eosin. The finished specimens were examined under light microscopy. Assessments were made for the presence of fibroblasts, neutrophils, giant polynuclear cells, neovascularisation and collagen deposits. Adhesions, anastomotic dehiscence, peri-anastomotic inflammation and intestinal healing were assessed peri-operatively. RESULTS: All anastomoses in group A healed with no signs of pathology. In group B, fibrotic adhesions and stenoses tended to occur in areas surrounding the anastomoses. Histological examinations confirmed increased fibrosis. CONCLUSION: The tissue adhesive Glubran 2 appears to be (under experimental conditions) a promising synthetic adhesive for colonic anastomosis construction; conversely, the tissue adhesive Dermabond was unsuitable for suture-free anastomosis construction.

See more in PubMed

J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1992 Dec;37(6):394-8 PubMed

Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008 Mar;23(3):265-70 PubMed

Colorectal Dis. 2007 Jan;9(1):71-9 PubMed

J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Jun;208(6):1152-3; author reply 1153-4 PubMed

Ann Surg. 1973 Feb;177(2):222-7 PubMed

ANZ J Surg. 2004 Dec;74(12):1107-0 PubMed

Arch Surg. 1988 Feb;123(2):230-4 PubMed

World J Gastroenterol. 2009 Oct 21;15(39):4945-51 PubMed

Colorectal Dis. 2004 Nov;6(6):462-9 PubMed

J Am Coll Surg. 2006 Mar;202(3):439-44 PubMed

Accid Emerg Nurs. 2000 Oct;8(4):223-7 PubMed

Eur J Surg Suppl. 1991;(566):1-51 PubMed

Am J Surg. 2008 Oct;196(4):592-8 PubMed

Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Sep;68(3):447-54 PubMed

Urology. 2001 Apr;57(4):806-10 PubMed

J Urol. 2002 Apr;167(4):1872-5 PubMed

Dis Colon Rectum. 2006 Nov;49(11):1719-25 PubMed

Dis Colon Rectum. 1990 Oct;33(10):891-901 PubMed

Arch Dermatol. 2001 Sep;137(9):1177-80 PubMed

J Am Coll Surg. 1997 Apr;184(4):364-72 PubMed

World J Surg. 2002 Apr;26(4):499-502 PubMed

Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2003 Apr 25;55(4):519-48 PubMed

Am J Surg. 2004 Jan;187(1):28-32 PubMed

Am J Surg. 1992 Mar;163(3):319-23 PubMed

Acta Chir Scand. 1985;151(6):537-41 PubMed

J Urol. 2002 Mar;167(3):1218-25 PubMed

ANZ J Surg. 2006 Jul;76(7):579-85 PubMed

Tech Coloproctol. 2004 Nov;8 Suppl 1:s79-81 PubMed

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...