Presented at the Scientific Poster Session, 35th Annual ACVS Scientific Meeting, September 21–24, 2000, Arlington, VA.
A Comparison of the Mechanical Strength of Two Stapled Anastomosis Techniques for Equine Small Intestine
Article first published online: 29 APR 2004
Volume 31, Issue 2, pages 104–110, March 2002
How to Cite
Bickers, R. J., Blackford, J. T., Eiler, H. and Rohrbach, B. (2002), A Comparison of the Mechanical Strength of Two Stapled Anastomosis Techniques for Equine Small Intestine. Veterinary Surgery, 31: 104–110. doi: 10.1053/jvet.2002.31051
Supported by funds from the Tennessee Equine Veterinary Research Organization and the Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Resident Research Funds.
No reprints available.
- Issue published online: 29 APR 2004
- Article first published online: 29 APR 2004
Objective— To compare bursting strength, time of construction, and cost of a closed one-stage, stapled functional end-to-end jejunojejunostomy (FEE) with a stapled side-to-side jejunojejunostomy (STS).
Study design— Experimental, randomized block design.
Animals— Seven adult horses without gastrointestinal disease.
Methods— The jejunum was isolated, and three FEE, three STS, and three control segments were created in each horse using a randomized block design. Anastomosis time was recorded. The intraluminal pressure at failure and mode of failure were recorded. Length at failure was measured on digitized images. Bursting pressure (BP), bursting wall tension (BWT), anastomosis time, and cost were compared.
Results— Control jejunal segments were stronger (P≤ .0001) in bursting strength and bursting wall tension (P≤ .0001) than either anastomosis type; no difference was found between anastomosis types for either variable. Functional end-to-end jejunojejunostomy was significantly quicker and less costly than STS (P≤ .0001).
Conclusions— Mechanically there were no significant differences between the FEE and STS techniques. The FEE technique maintained the physiologic direction of peristalsis of the segments, required less tissue manipulation, and was faster and more economical to create.
Clinical relevance— The FEE is a clinically viable technique.