Comparative evaluation of healing response between colo-colic invagination anastomosis and single-layer running suture. Experimental study in dogs

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Nogueira,Miguel Augusto Arcoverde
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Regadas,Francisco Sérgio Pinheiro, Bezerra,Carlos Renato Sales, Figueiredo,Welligton Ribeiro, Filho,Erbert Portela Martins
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632016000300157
Resumo: Abstract Objective Evaluate healing response of colo-colic anastomosis by invagination vs. single-layer suture. Methods Sixty dogs were randomly distributed in two groups and anastomosed with single-layer suture (G-I, control) or by invagination and cardinal sutures (G-II, study). In the end, the animals were euthanized (10 from each group on POD7 and 20 on POD21) and the anastomosed segment was retrieved for histology and immunohistochemistry. Parameters included body weight, adhesions, edema, vasoproliferation, type I and III collagen, myeloperoxidase and nitric oxide. Findings were analyzed with Student's t test and the Mann–Whitney test. Results No animal died prior to euthanasia. The groups were similar with regard to all parameters: median weight 10.86 kg (G-I) and 9.98 kg (G-II) on POD7 (p = 0.41) and 11.86 kg (G-I) and 11.55 kg (G-II) on POD21 (p = 0.71); abdominal adhesions (p = 0.7383 POD7; p = 0.5685 POD21), level of edema (p = 0.3006 POD7; p = 0.7990 POD21), vasoproliferation (p = 0.1191 POD7; p = 0.0758 POD21), type I collagen (p = 0.4591 POD7; p = 0.3357 POD21), type III collagen (p = 0.2166 POD7; p = 0.2712 POD21), nitric oxide (p = 0.3980 POD7; p = 0.4796 POD21) and myeloperoxidase (p = 0.580 POD7; p = 0.755 POD21). Conclusion No significant difference in healing response was observed between the two anastomosis techniques (single-layer suture and invagination).
id SBCP-1_8ed6958c0dc504ce220de1a2397fee0a
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2237-93632016000300157
network_acronym_str SBCP-1
network_name_str Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Comparative evaluation of healing response between colo-colic invagination anastomosis and single-layer running suture. Experimental study in dogsAnastomosisWound HealingColonAbstract Objective Evaluate healing response of colo-colic anastomosis by invagination vs. single-layer suture. Methods Sixty dogs were randomly distributed in two groups and anastomosed with single-layer suture (G-I, control) or by invagination and cardinal sutures (G-II, study). In the end, the animals were euthanized (10 from each group on POD7 and 20 on POD21) and the anastomosed segment was retrieved for histology and immunohistochemistry. Parameters included body weight, adhesions, edema, vasoproliferation, type I and III collagen, myeloperoxidase and nitric oxide. Findings were analyzed with Student's t test and the Mann–Whitney test. Results No animal died prior to euthanasia. The groups were similar with regard to all parameters: median weight 10.86 kg (G-I) and 9.98 kg (G-II) on POD7 (p = 0.41) and 11.86 kg (G-I) and 11.55 kg (G-II) on POD21 (p = 0.71); abdominal adhesions (p = 0.7383 POD7; p = 0.5685 POD21), level of edema (p = 0.3006 POD7; p = 0.7990 POD21), vasoproliferation (p = 0.1191 POD7; p = 0.0758 POD21), type I collagen (p = 0.4591 POD7; p = 0.3357 POD21), type III collagen (p = 0.2166 POD7; p = 0.2712 POD21), nitric oxide (p = 0.3980 POD7; p = 0.4796 POD21) and myeloperoxidase (p = 0.580 POD7; p = 0.755 POD21). Conclusion No significant difference in healing response was observed between the two anastomosis techniques (single-layer suture and invagination).Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia2016-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632016000300157Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro) v.36 n.3 2016reponame:Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia (SBCP)instacron:SBCP10.1016/j.jcol.2016.04.008info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessNogueira,Miguel Augusto ArcoverdeRegadas,Francisco Sérgio PinheiroBezerra,Carlos Renato SalesFigueiredo,Welligton RibeiroFilho,Erbert Portela Martinseng2016-10-07T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2237-93632016000300157Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=2237-9363&lng=pt&nrm=isohttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sbcp@sbcp.org.br2317-64232237-9363opendoar:2016-10-07T00:00Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia (SBCP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparative evaluation of healing response between colo-colic invagination anastomosis and single-layer running suture. Experimental study in dogs
title Comparative evaluation of healing response between colo-colic invagination anastomosis and single-layer running suture. Experimental study in dogs
spellingShingle Comparative evaluation of healing response between colo-colic invagination anastomosis and single-layer running suture. Experimental study in dogs
Nogueira,Miguel Augusto Arcoverde
Anastomosis
Wound Healing
Colon
title_short Comparative evaluation of healing response between colo-colic invagination anastomosis and single-layer running suture. Experimental study in dogs
title_full Comparative evaluation of healing response between colo-colic invagination anastomosis and single-layer running suture. Experimental study in dogs
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of healing response between colo-colic invagination anastomosis and single-layer running suture. Experimental study in dogs
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of healing response between colo-colic invagination anastomosis and single-layer running suture. Experimental study in dogs
title_sort Comparative evaluation of healing response between colo-colic invagination anastomosis and single-layer running suture. Experimental study in dogs
author Nogueira,Miguel Augusto Arcoverde
author_facet Nogueira,Miguel Augusto Arcoverde
Regadas,Francisco Sérgio Pinheiro
Bezerra,Carlos Renato Sales
Figueiredo,Welligton Ribeiro
Filho,Erbert Portela Martins
author_role author
author2 Regadas,Francisco Sérgio Pinheiro
Bezerra,Carlos Renato Sales
Figueiredo,Welligton Ribeiro
Filho,Erbert Portela Martins
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Nogueira,Miguel Augusto Arcoverde
Regadas,Francisco Sérgio Pinheiro
Bezerra,Carlos Renato Sales
Figueiredo,Welligton Ribeiro
Filho,Erbert Portela Martins
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Anastomosis
Wound Healing
Colon
topic Anastomosis
Wound Healing
Colon
description Abstract Objective Evaluate healing response of colo-colic anastomosis by invagination vs. single-layer suture. Methods Sixty dogs were randomly distributed in two groups and anastomosed with single-layer suture (G-I, control) or by invagination and cardinal sutures (G-II, study). In the end, the animals were euthanized (10 from each group on POD7 and 20 on POD21) and the anastomosed segment was retrieved for histology and immunohistochemistry. Parameters included body weight, adhesions, edema, vasoproliferation, type I and III collagen, myeloperoxidase and nitric oxide. Findings were analyzed with Student's t test and the Mann–Whitney test. Results No animal died prior to euthanasia. The groups were similar with regard to all parameters: median weight 10.86 kg (G-I) and 9.98 kg (G-II) on POD7 (p = 0.41) and 11.86 kg (G-I) and 11.55 kg (G-II) on POD21 (p = 0.71); abdominal adhesions (p = 0.7383 POD7; p = 0.5685 POD21), level of edema (p = 0.3006 POD7; p = 0.7990 POD21), vasoproliferation (p = 0.1191 POD7; p = 0.0758 POD21), type I collagen (p = 0.4591 POD7; p = 0.3357 POD21), type III collagen (p = 0.2166 POD7; p = 0.2712 POD21), nitric oxide (p = 0.3980 POD7; p = 0.4796 POD21) and myeloperoxidase (p = 0.580 POD7; p = 0.755 POD21). Conclusion No significant difference in healing response was observed between the two anastomosis techniques (single-layer suture and invagination).
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-09-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632016000300157
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632016000300157
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.jcol.2016.04.008
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro) v.36 n.3 2016
reponame:Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia (SBCP)
instacron:SBCP
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia (SBCP)
instacron_str SBCP
institution SBCP
reponame_str Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
collection Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia (SBCP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sbcp@sbcp.org.br
_version_ 1752126477860601856