Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Jul 15;101(28):e29600. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029600.
Anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal anastomosis is a serious complication. Anastomotic failure depends on various parameters. The aim of our study was to evaluate the pressure resistance of a new device, EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology 28 mm Medium/Thick (Triple-rows circular stapler; TCS) compared with EEA™ circular stapler with DST series™ technology 28 mm, 4.8 mm staples (double-rows circular stapler; DCS).
We performed 30 anastomoses (DSC: 15, TCS: 15) of DST with porcine colon model in vitro. We performed following 3 comparative experiences; Experiment 1: observation of staple shape with a colonoscopy, Experiment 2: comparison of the pressure resistance, Experiment 3: comparison of leakage points.
There was no hypoplasia of staples and the shapes were well-formed by colonoscopy. The leakage pressure of DCS was 19.6 ± 4.4 mm Hg (mean ± standard deviation) and that of TCS was 38.6 ± 10.2 mm Hg (mean ± standard deviation). There was a significantly difference between 2 groups (P < .001). 12 cases of DCS (80%) and 10 cases of TCS (66.7%) had leakages from Circular stapler point. 2 cases of DCS (13.3%) and 5 cases of TCS (33.3%) had leakages from Crossing points. Only 1 case of DCS had leakages from Dog ear point (6.7%). There was no significantly difference in leakage site between 2 groups (P = .195).
TSC showed high pressure resistance during DST compared with that of DCS. It was suggested that TCS may contribute to the reduction of anastomotic leakage rate.
胃肠吻合术后吻合口漏是一种严重的并发症。吻合口失败取决于各种参数。我们的研究目的是评估一种新装置的抗压能力,即 EEA™圆形吻合器与 Tri-Staple™技术 28mm 中厚型(Triple-rows circular stapler;TCS)与 EEA™圆形吻合器与 DST 系列™技术 28mm、4.8mm 吻合钉(Double-rows circular stapler;DCS)相比。
我们在体外猪结肠模型上进行了 30 例 DST 吻合术(DCS:15 例,TCS:15 例)。我们进行了以下 3 项比较实验;实验 1:结肠镜观察吻合钉形状,实验 2:比较抗压能力,实验 3:比较漏点。
吻合钉无发育不良,结肠镜下形状良好。DCS 的泄漏压力为 19.6±4.4mmHg(平均值±标准差),TCS 的泄漏压力为 38.6±10.2mmHg(平均值±标准差)。两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。DCS 组有 12 例(80%)和 TCS 组有 10 例(66.7%)吻合钉处发生漏液。DCS 组有 2 例(13.3%)和 TCS 组有 5 例(33.3%)吻合钉交叉处发生漏液。只有 1 例 DCS 组(6.7%)狗耳处发生漏液。两组间漏液部位差异无统计学意义(P=0.195)。
TCS 在 DST 中与 DCS 相比具有较高的抗压能力。这表明 TCS 可能有助于降低吻合口漏的发生率。