Medicine · 2022
Comparison of pressure resistance of double-rows and triple-rows circular stapler in rectal double stapling technique: In vitro study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mazaki Junichi, Katsumata Kenji, Udo Ryutaro, Tago Tomoya, Kasahara Kenta, Kuwabara Hiroshi, Enomoto Masanobu, Ishizaki Tetsuo, Nagakawa Yuichi, Tsuchida Akihiko
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: 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).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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.