• 1.

    Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27(2):97132.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Eugster S, Schawalder P, Gaschen F, Boerlin P. A prospective study of postoperative surgical site infections in dogs and cats. Vet Surg. 2004;33(5):542550.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Weese JS. A review of post-operative infections in veterinary orthopaedic surgery. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2008;21(2):99105.

  • 4.

    Nicoll C, Singh A, Weese JS. Economic impact of tibial plateau levelling osteotomy surgical site infection in dogs. Vet Surg. 2014;43(8):899902.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20(5):271274.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Cruse PJ, Foord R. The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am. 1980;60(1):2740.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Biller DH, Guerette NL, Bena JF, Davila GW. A prospective, randomized controlled trial of the use of an anal purse-string suture to decrease contamination during pelvic reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(1):5963.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Tillson DM. Anal sacculectomy. Clin Brief. 2013;7:5965.

  • 9.

    Baines SJ, Aronson LR. Rectum, anus, and perineum. In: Johnston SA, Tobias KM, eds. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2017:17831828.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Boothe HW. Penis and prepuce. In: Johnston SA, Tobias KM, eds. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2017:21582167.

  • 11.

    Wright ME, Solo-Gabriele HM, Elmir S, Fleming LE. Microbial load from animal feces at a recreational beach. Mar Pollut Bull. 2009;58(11):16491656.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Yellin AE, Newman J, Donovan AJ. Neostigmine-induced hyperperistalsis. Effects on security of colonic anastomoses. Arch Surg. 1973;106(6):779784.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Shafik A. A study of the origin of the electric activity of the rectum: is it neurogenic or myogenic? Spinal Cord. 1998;36(8):548553.

  • 14.

    Säuberli H, Geroulanos S, Hahnloser P, Schauwecker H, Kock NG. Studies of the dynamics of the “nipple valve” in dogs with continent colostomies. Dis Colon Rectum. 1974;17(6):735740.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Whitley JQ, Prewitt MJ, Kusy RP. Relationship of the diameter and tensile strength of nylon sutures to the USP specification and the effect of preconditioning. J Appl Biomater. 1990;1(4):315320.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Comparison of three purse-string suture techniques for prevention of anal leakage during surgery

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare 3 anal purse-string suture techniques for resistance to leakage and to identify the suture technique requiring the fewest tissue bites to create a consistent leak-proof orifice closure.

ANIMALS

18 large-breed canine cadavers.

PROCEDURES

3 purse-string suture techniques (3 bites with 0.5 cm between bites [technique A], 5 bites with 0.5 cm between bites [technique B], and 3 bites with 1.0 cm between bites [technique C]) were evaluated. Each technique involved 2-0 monofilament nylon suture that was placed in the cutaneous tissue around the anus and knotted with 6 square throws. Standardized 2.0-cm-diameter circular templates with the designated bite number and spacing indicated were used for suture placement. Leak-pressure testing was performed, and the pressure at which saline was first observed leaking from the anus was recorded. The median and interquartile (25th to 75th percentile) range (IQR) were compared among 3 techniques.

RESULTS

Median leak pressure for technique A (101 mm Hg; IQR, 35 to 131.3 mm Hg) was significantly greater than that for technique C (19 mm Hg; IQR, 14.3 to 25.3 mm Hg). Median pressure did not differ between techniques A and B (50 mm Hg; IQR, 32.5 to 65 mm Hg) or between techniques B and C.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Placement of an anal purse-string suture prevented leakage at physiologic colonic and rectal pressures, regardless of technique. Placement of 3 bites 0.5 cm apart (technique A) is recommended because it used the fewest number of bites and had the highest resistance to leakage.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare 3 anal purse-string suture techniques for resistance to leakage and to identify the suture technique requiring the fewest tissue bites to create a consistent leak-proof orifice closure.

ANIMALS

18 large-breed canine cadavers.

PROCEDURES

3 purse-string suture techniques (3 bites with 0.5 cm between bites [technique A], 5 bites with 0.5 cm between bites [technique B], and 3 bites with 1.0 cm between bites [technique C]) were evaluated. Each technique involved 2-0 monofilament nylon suture that was placed in the cutaneous tissue around the anus and knotted with 6 square throws. Standardized 2.0-cm-diameter circular templates with the designated bite number and spacing indicated were used for suture placement. Leak-pressure testing was performed, and the pressure at which saline was first observed leaking from the anus was recorded. The median and interquartile (25th to 75th percentile) range (IQR) were compared among 3 techniques.

RESULTS

Median leak pressure for technique A (101 mm Hg; IQR, 35 to 131.3 mm Hg) was significantly greater than that for technique C (19 mm Hg; IQR, 14.3 to 25.3 mm Hg). Median pressure did not differ between techniques A and B (50 mm Hg; IQR, 32.5 to 65 mm Hg) or between techniques B and C.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Placement of an anal purse-string suture prevented leakage at physiologic colonic and rectal pressures, regardless of technique. Placement of 3 bites 0.5 cm apart (technique A) is recommended because it used the fewest number of bites and had the highest resistance to leakage.

Contributor Notes

Corresponding author: Dr. Smeak (dan.smeak@colostate.edu)