• 1. Allen P, Paul A. Gastropexy for prevention of gastric dilatation-volvulus in dogs: history and techniques. Top Companion Anim Med 2014;29:7780.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Belandria GA, Pavletic MM, Boulay JP, et al. Gastropexy with an automatic stapling instrument for the treatment of gastric dilatation and volvulus in 20 dogs. Can Vet J 2009;50:733740.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Benitez ME, Schmiedt CW, Radlinsky MG, et al. Efficacy of incisional gastropexy for prevention of GDV in dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2013;49:185189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Gazzola KM, Nelson LL, Fritz MC, et al. Effects of prophylactic incisional gastropexy on markers of gastric motility in dogs as determined by use of a novel wireless motility device. Am J Vet Res 2017;78:100106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Hammel SP, Novo RE. Recurrence of gastric dilatation-volvulus after incisional gastropexy in a Rottweiler. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2006;42:147150.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Ward MP, Patronek GJ, Glickman LT. Benefits of prophylactic gastropexy for dogs at risk of gastric dilatation-volvulus. Prev Vet Med 2003;60:319329.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Haraguchi T, Kimura S, Itoh H, et al. Comparison of postoperative pain and inflammation reaction in dogs undergoing preventive laparoscopic-assisted and incisional gastropexy. J Vet Med Sci 2017;79:15241531.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Tavakoli A, Mahmoodifard M, Razavifard AH. The superiority of paracostal endoscopic-assisted gastropexy over open incisional and belt loop gastropexy in dogs: a comparison of three prophylactic techniques. Iran J Vet Res 2016;17:118123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Wilson ER, Henderson RA, Montgomery RD, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and belt-loop gastropexy in dogs. Vet Surg 1996;25:221227.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Balsa IM, Culp WTN, Drobatz KJ, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy on gastrointestinal transit time in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2017;31:16801685.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Dujowich M, Reimer SB. Evaluation of an endoscopically assisted gastropexy technique in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2008;69:537541.

  • 12. Freeman LJ. Gastrointestinal laparoscopy in small animals. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2009;39:903924.

  • 13. Rawlings CA. Laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2002;38:1519.

  • 14. Coleman KA, Adams S, Smeak DD, et al. Laparoscopic gastropexy using knotless unidirectional suture and an articulated endoscopic suturing device: seven cases. Vet Surg 2016;45(S1):O95–O101.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Coleman KA, Monnet E. Comparison of laparoscopic gastropexy performed via intracorporeal suturing with knotless unidirectional barbed suture using a needle driver versus a roticulated endoscopic suturing device: 30 cases. Vet Surg 2017;46:10021007.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Mayhew PD, Brown DC. Prospective evaluation of two intracorporeally sutured prophylactic laparoscopic gastropexy techniques compared with laparoscopic-assisted gastropexy in dogs. Vet Surg 2009;38:738746.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Runge JJ, Mayhew PD. Evaluation of single port access gastropexy and ovariectomy using articulating instruments and angled telescopes in dogs. Vet Surg 2013;42:807813.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Spah CE, Elkins AD, Wehrenberg A, et al. Evaluation of two novel self-anchoring barbed sutures in a prophylactic laparoscopic gastropexy compared with intracorporeal tied knots. Vet Surg 2013;42:932942.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Stiles M, Case JB, Coisman J. Elective gastropexy with a reusable single-incision laparoscopic surgery port in dogs: 14 cases (2012–2013). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2016;249:299303.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Takacs JD, Singh A, Case JB, et al. Total laparoscopic gastropexy using 1 simple continuous barbed suture line in 63 dogs. Vet Surg 2017;46:233241.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Deroy C, Hahn H, Bismuth C, et al. Simplified minimally invasive surgical approach for prophylactic laparoscopic gastropexy in 21 cases. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2019;55:152159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Zihni AM, Cavallo JA, Thompson DM Jr, et al. Evaluation of absorbable mesh fixation devices at various deployment angles. Surg Endosc 2015;29:16051613.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Arbaugh M, Case JB, Monnet E. Biomechanical comparison of glycomer 631 and glycomer 631 knotless for use in canine incisional gastropexy. Vet Surg 2013;42:205209.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Mathon DH, Dossin O, Palierne S, et al. A laparoscopicsutured gastropexy technique in dogs: mechanical and functional evaluation. Vet Surg 2009;38:967974.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Rodeheaver GT, Beltran KA, Green CW, et al. Biomechanical and clinical performance of a new synthetic monofilament absorbable suture. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 1996;6:181198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Deeken CR, Matthews BD. Ventralight ST and SorbaFix versus Physiomesh and Securestrap in a porcine model. JSLS 2013;17:549559.

  • 27. Reynvoet E, Berrevoet F. Pros and cons of tacking in laparoscopic hernia repair. Surg Technol Int 2014;25:136140.

Advertisement

Biomechanical evaluation of an absorbable fixation strap for use in total laparoscopic gastropexy in dogs

View More View Less
  • 1 1Department of Emergencies and Organ Transplantation, Section of Veterinary Clinics and Animal Production, University of Bari, 70010 Valenzano, Bari, Italy.
  • | 2 2Scientific Hospitalization and Care Institute, Saverio De Bellis, 70013 Castellana Grotte, Italy.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare load-to-failure results for laparoscopic absorbable fixation straps (AFSs) deployed at various angles and for AFSs versus absorbable knotless (barbed) suture when used in simulated total laparoscopic gastropexy (TLG) in specimens from cadaveric dogs.

SAMPLE

30 stomach and abdominal body wall specimens.

PROCEDURES

Specimens were assigned to 1 of 3 groups for use in simulated TLG constructs for comparisons of load-to-failure results for single AFSs deployed at 30°, 60°, or 90° (AFS-angle group; n = 10) or for a gastropexy span of 4 to 5 cm achieved with 3-0 absorbable knotless (barbed) monofilament suture applied in a simple continuous pattern (TLG-1; 10) versus 8 AFSs applied with a deployment angle > 30° (TLG-2; 10). A 1-way ANOVA was used to compare results among AFS deployment angles (30°, 60°, or 90°) and between TLG-1 and TLG-2.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD load to failure for the AFS-angle group was significantly higher for the AFS deployment angles of 60° (8.00 ± 3.90 N) and 90° (12.71 ± 8.00 N), compared with 30° (5.17 ± 1.90 N). However, no substantial difference was detected in the mean ± SD load to failure for TLG-1 (39.18 ± 7.1 N) versus TLG-2 (31.43 ± 10.86 N).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results of the present study supported the potential use of AFSs in gastropexy in dogs; however, prospective clinical research with adequate long-term follow-up is warranted before recommendations can be made.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare load-to-failure results for laparoscopic absorbable fixation straps (AFSs) deployed at various angles and for AFSs versus absorbable knotless (barbed) suture when used in simulated total laparoscopic gastropexy (TLG) in specimens from cadaveric dogs.

SAMPLE

30 stomach and abdominal body wall specimens.

PROCEDURES

Specimens were assigned to 1 of 3 groups for use in simulated TLG constructs for comparisons of load-to-failure results for single AFSs deployed at 30°, 60°, or 90° (AFS-angle group; n = 10) or for a gastropexy span of 4 to 5 cm achieved with 3-0 absorbable knotless (barbed) monofilament suture applied in a simple continuous pattern (TLG-1; 10) versus 8 AFSs applied with a deployment angle > 30° (TLG-2; 10). A 1-way ANOVA was used to compare results among AFS deployment angles (30°, 60°, or 90°) and between TLG-1 and TLG-2.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD load to failure for the AFS-angle group was significantly higher for the AFS deployment angles of 60° (8.00 ± 3.90 N) and 90° (12.71 ± 8.00 N), compared with 30° (5.17 ± 1.90 N). However, no substantial difference was detected in the mean ± SD load to failure for TLG-1 (39.18 ± 7.1 N) versus TLG-2 (31.43 ± 10.86 N).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results of the present study supported the potential use of AFSs in gastropexy in dogs; however, prospective clinical research with adequate long-term follow-up is warranted before recommendations can be made.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Prof. Lacitignola (luca.lacitignola@uniba.it).