Aldrich Ellison D, Earnest Jennifer, Moorman Valerie J
Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Vet Surg. 2017 Apr;46(3):417-421. doi: 10.1111/vsu.12633. Epub 2017 Feb 3.
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.
Ex vivo, simple randomized study.
Large colon segments from adult horses (n = 18).
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.
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.
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.
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。
体外简单随机研究。
成年马的大结肠段(n = 18)。
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。
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。
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。