• 1. Saile K, Boothe HW, Boothe DM. Saline volume necessary to achieve predetermined intraluminal pressures during leak testing of small intestinal biopsy sites in the dog. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 900903.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Coolman BR, Ehrhart N & Pijanowski G et alComparison of skin staples with sutures for anastomosis of the small intestine in dogs. Vet Surg 2000; 29: 293302.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Weisman DL, Smeak DD & Birchard SJ et alComparison of a continuous suture pattern with a simple interrupted pattern for enteric closure in dogs and cats: 83 cases (1991–1997). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999; 214: 15071510.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Bone DL, Duckett KE & Patton CS et alEvaluation of anastomoses of small intestine in dogs: crushing versus noncrushing suturing techniques. Am J Vet Res 1983; 44: 20432048.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Boag AK, Coe RJ & Martinez TA et alAcid-base and electrolyte abnormalities in dogs with gastrointestinal foreign bodies. J Vet Intern Med 2005; 19: 816821.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Ralphs SC, Jessen CR, Lipowitz AJ. Risk factors for leakage following intestinal anastomosis in dogs and cats: 115 cases (1991–2000). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003; 223: 7377.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Allen DA, Smeak DD, Schertel ER. Prevalence of small intestinal dehiscence and associated clinical factors: a retrospective study of 121 dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1992; 28: 7076.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Rashid R, Sartori M & White LE et alBreaking strength of barbed polypropylene sutures: rater-blinded, controlled comparison with nonbarbed sutures of various calibers. Arch Dermatol 2007; 143: 869872.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Demyttenaere SV, Nau P & Henn M et alBarbed suture for gastrointestinal closure: a randomized control trial. Surg Innov 2009; 16: 237242.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Tewari AK, Srivastava A & Sooriakumaran P et alUse of a novel absorbable barbed plastic surgical suture enables a “self-cinching” technique of vesicourethral anastomosis during robot-assisted prostatectomy and improves anastomotic times. J Endourol 2010; 24: 16451650.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Paul MD. Barbed sutures for aesthetic facial plastic surgery: indications and techniques. Clin Plast Surg 2008; 35: 451461.

  • 12. Rosen AD. Use of absorbable running barbed suture and progressive tension technique in abdominoplasty: a novel approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 10241027.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Zeplin PH, Zahn RK & Meffert RH et alBiomechanical evaluation of flexor tendon repair using barbed suture material: a comparative ex vivo study. J Hand Surg 2011; 36: 446449.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Kaul S, Sammon J & Bhandari A et alA novel method of urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using a unidirectional barbed wound closure device: feasibility study and early outcomes in 51 patients. J Endourol 2010; 24: 17891793.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Tasaka K, Farrar JT. Intraluminal pressure of the small intestine of the unanesthetized dog. Pflügers Arch 1976; 364: 3544.

  • 16. Shikata J, Shida T & Amino K et alExperimental studies on the hemodynamics of the small intestine following increased intraluminal pressure. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1983; 156: 155160.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Curran KM, Fransson BA, Gay JM. A comparison of in situ and in vitro techniques for bursting pressure testing of canine jejunum. Am J Vet Res 2010; 71: 370373.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Ellison GW. End-to-end anastomosis in the dog: a comparison of techniques. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1981; 3: 486494.

  • 19. Semevolos SA, Reed SK, Gamble K. In vitro bursting pressures of jejunal enterotomy closures in llamas. Vet Surg 2007; 36: 6467.

  • 20. Olah A, Belagyi T & Neuberger G et alUse of different absorbable sutures for continuous single-layer anastomosis in the gastrointestinal tract. A prospective, randomized study. Dig Surg 2000; 17: 483486.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Evaluation of a novel suture material for closure of intestinal anastomoses in canine cadavers

Lane A. Hansen DVM, MS1 and Eric L. Monnet DVM, PhD2
View More View Less
  • 1 United States Army 106th MD BN VET SVC, APO AP (Korea), 96351.
  • | 2 Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Abstract

Objective—To compare leakage and maximum intraluminal pressures for a novel suture material with pressures for comparable suture material when used in closure of intestinal anastomoses in canine cadavers.

Sample—Healthy intestines from cadavers of dogs euthanized for reasons unrelated to the study.

Procedures—18 anastomoses were performed on intestinal sections within 72 hours after dogs were euthanized and intestinal samples collected. Anastomoses were performed with a simple continuous suture pattern. Leakage and maximum intraluminal pressures were measured and recorded for 6 control segments and 18 anastomosed sections. A barbed glycomer 631 suture (size 4–0 United States Pharmacopeia [USP]) was compared with glycomer 631 sutures (sizes 3–0 and 4–0 USP). Results for leakage and maximum intraluminal pressures were compared via an ANOVA.

Results—The barbed glycomer 631 suture material leaked at a significantly higher pressure than did the comparable glycomer 631 suture materials. Maximum intraluminal pressures were not significantly different among the suture materials.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Barbed glycomer 631 4–0 USP suture material was as effective as glycomer 631 suture materials and may be a safe alternative for use in closure of enterectomies in dogs.

Abstract

Objective—To compare leakage and maximum intraluminal pressures for a novel suture material with pressures for comparable suture material when used in closure of intestinal anastomoses in canine cadavers.

Sample—Healthy intestines from cadavers of dogs euthanized for reasons unrelated to the study.

Procedures—18 anastomoses were performed on intestinal sections within 72 hours after dogs were euthanized and intestinal samples collected. Anastomoses were performed with a simple continuous suture pattern. Leakage and maximum intraluminal pressures were measured and recorded for 6 control segments and 18 anastomosed sections. A barbed glycomer 631 suture (size 4–0 United States Pharmacopeia [USP]) was compared with glycomer 631 sutures (sizes 3–0 and 4–0 USP). Results for leakage and maximum intraluminal pressures were compared via an ANOVA.

Results—The barbed glycomer 631 suture material leaked at a significantly higher pressure than did the comparable glycomer 631 suture materials. Maximum intraluminal pressures were not significantly different among the suture materials.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Barbed glycomer 631 4–0 USP suture material was as effective as glycomer 631 suture materials and may be a safe alternative for use in closure of enterectomies in dogs.

Contributor Notes

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.

Address correspondence to Dr. Monnet (Eric.Monnet@ColoState.edu).