Suppr超能文献

马尸体大结肠骨盆曲肠切开术3种缝合闭合技术的比较

Comparison of 3 suture closure techniques for pelvic flexure enterotomy in equine cadaveric large colon.

作者信息

Aldrich Ellison D, Earnest Jennifer, Moorman Valerie J

机构信息

Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

出版信息

Vet Surg. 2017 Apr;46(3):417-421. doi: 10.1111/vsu.12633. Epub 2017 Feb 3.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare a 2-layer closure with suture line reversal for a pelvic flexure enterotomy to 1-layer and traditional 2-layer hand sewn closures.

STUDY DESIGN

Ex vivo, simple randomized study.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Large colon segments from adult horses (n = 18).

METHODS

Pelvic flexures were harvested from 18 horses and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 closure techniques (n = 6 per technique). A 10-cm enterotomy was made in each pelvic flexure and closed with the assigned technique. Closure time, luminal diameter via contrast radiographs, and bursting pressure were recorded for each specimen and compared between techniques using 1-way ANOVA with Duncan post hoc test at P < .05.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in closure time (P = .034) with 1-layer closure faster than both the traditional 2-layer closure (P=.024) and the 2-layer closure with suture line reversal (P = .030). There was no significant difference in luminal diameter or bursting pressure between the 3 closure techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-layer closure with suture line reversal may be an alternative to traditional 2-layer closure for closure of the pelvic flexure based on ex vivo bursting pressure testing and closure time. A 1-layer simple continuous closure resisted bursting pressure not different to both 2-layer closure techniques. Further in vivo evaluation may be indicated.

摘要

目的

比较骨盆曲部肠切开术的两层缝合加缝线反转法与单层缝合及传统两层手工缝合的效果。

研究设计

体外简单随机研究。

样本群体

成年马的大结肠段(n = 18)。

方法

从18匹马身上获取骨盆曲部,随机分配至3种缝合技术中的1种(每种技术n = 6)。在每个骨盆曲部做一个10厘米的肠切开术,并用指定技术进行缝合。记录每个标本的缝合时间、通过造影X线照片测得的管腔直径和破裂压力,并使用单向方差分析及Duncan事后检验(P < 0.05)对不同技术之间进行比较。

结果

缝合时间存在显著差异(P = 0.034),单层缝合比传统两层缝合(P = 0.024)和两层缝合加缝线反转法(P = 0.030)都快。3种缝合技术在管腔直径或破裂压力方面无显著差异。

结论

基于体外破裂压力测试和缝合时间,两层缝合加缝线反转法可能是骨盆曲部缝合的传统两层缝合的替代方法。单层简单连续缝合抵抗破裂压力的能力与两种两层缝合技术无异。可能需要进一步的体内评估。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验