• 1.

    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(1):7377.

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

    Weisman DL, Smeak DD, Birchard SJ, Zweigart SL. Comparison 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(10):15071510.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    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(1):7076.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Giuffrida MAB, Brown DC. Small intestine. In: Johnston SA, Tobias KM, eds. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2018:17301761.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    DePompeo CM, Bond L, George YE, et al. Intra-abdominal complications following intestinal anastomoses by suture and staple techniques in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2018;253(4):437443.

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

    Ellison GW, Case JB, Regier PJ. Intestinal surgery in small animals: historical foundations, current thinking, and future horizons. Vet Surg. 2019;48: 11711180.

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

    Radlinksy MA, Fossum TW. Surgery of the digestive system. In: Fossum TW, ed. Small Animal Surgery. 5th ed. Elsevier; 2019:331511.

  • 8.

    Smeak D. Enterotomy. In: Monnet E, Smeak D, eds. Gastrointestinal Surgical Techniques in Small Animals. John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2020:181186.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Brown DC. Small intestines. In: Slatter DH, ed. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. 3rd ed. WB Saunders; 2003:644664.

  • 10.

    Ellison G. Intestines. In: Bojrab MJ, Ellison GW, Slocum B, eds. Current Techniques in Small Animal Surgery. 4th ed. Williams & Wilkins; 1998:245286.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Yool DA. Gastrointestinal surgery. In: Yool DA, ed. Small Animal Soft Ttissue Surgery. CABI; 2012:171204.

  • 12.

    Pavletic MM, Berg J. Gastrointestinal surgery. In: Lipowitz A, Caywood D, Newton C, Schwartz A, eds. Complications in Small Animal Surgery. Williams & Wilkins; 1996:365398.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Culbertson TF, Smeak DD, Pogue JM, Vitt MA, Downey AC. Intraoperative surgeon probe inspection compared to leak testing for detecting gaps in canine jejunal continuous anastomoses: A cadaveric study. Vet Surg. 2021;50(7):14721482. Abstract. doi:10.1111/vsu.13708

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Gilbert JM, Trapnell JE. Intraoperative testing of the integrity of left-sided colorectal anastomoses: a technique of value to the surgeon in training. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1988;70(3):158160.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Wheeler JM, Gilbert JM. Controlled intraoperative water testing of left-sided colorectal anastomoses. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1999;81(2):105108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    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(7):900903.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Matz BM, Boothe HW, Wright JC, Boothe DM. Effect of enteric biopsy closure orientation on enteric circumference and volume of saline needed for leak testing. Can Vet J. 2014;55(1):12551257.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Brand KJ, Hess E, Risselada M. Effects of needle gauge and syringe size on small intestinal leakage at injection sites. Vet Surg. 2019;48(7):12371244.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Strelchik A, Coleman MC, Scharf VF, Stoneburner RM, Thieman Mankin KM. Intestinal incisional dehiscence rate following enterotomy for foreign body removal in 247 dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2019;(6)255:695699.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Wylie KB, Hosgood G. Mortality and morbidity of small and large intestinal surgery in dogs and cats: 74 cases (1980–1992). J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 1996;30(5):469474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Duell JR, Thieman Mankin KM, Rochat MC, Regier PJ, Singh A. Frequency of dehiscence in hand-sutured and stapled intestinal anastomoses in dogs. Vet Surg. 2016;45(1):100103.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Delaney F, O’Brien R, Waller K. Ultrasound evaluation of small bowel thickness compared to weight in normal dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2003;44(5):577580.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Gladwin NE, Penninck DG, Webster CRL. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the thickness of the wall layers in the intestinal tract of dogs. Am J Vet Res. 2014;75(4):349353.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Paulsen DB, Buddington KK, Buddington RK. Dimensions and histologic characteristics of the small intestine of dogs during postnatal development. Am J Vet Res. 2003;64(5):618626.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Sarría R, Latorre R, Henroteaux M, et al. Morphometric study of the layers of the canine small intestine at five sampling sites. Vet J. 2012;192(3):498502.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Mean difference for Sample Size and Power Calculations. OpenEpi: Open Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health. Accessed Feb 2, 2019. https://www.openepi.com/power/powermean

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Mullen KM, Regier PJ, Fox-Alvarez WA, Case JB, Ellison GW, Colee J. Evaluation of intraoperative leak testing of small intestinal anastomoses performed by hand-sewn and stapled techniques in dogs: 131 cases (2008–2019). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2021;258(9):991998.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Sumner SM, Regier PJ, Case JB, Ellison GW. Evaluation of suture reinforcement for stapled intestinal anastomoses: 77 dogs (2008–2018). Vet Surg. 2019;48(7):11881193.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    White RN. Modified functional end-to-end stapled intestinal anastomosis: technique and clinical results in 15 dogs. J Small Anim Pract. 2008;49(6):274281.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Lorange M, Smeak DD. Comparison of a simple continuous vs simple interrupted suture pattern for repair of large, open duodenal defect with jejunal serosal patch in canine cadaveric model. Am J Vet Res. 2020;81(12):985991.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Mullen KM, Regier PJ, Waln M, Fox-Alvarez WA, Colee J. Gastrointestinal thickness, duration, and leak pressure of six intestinal anastomoses in dogs. Vet Surg. 2020;49(7):13151325.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Hall J. Excitation and contraction of smooth muscle. In: Hall J, ed. Textbook of Medical Physiology. 12th ed. Saunders Elsevier; 2011:9198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Schulze-Delrieu K. Intrinsic differences in the filling response of the guinea pig duodenum and ileum. J Lab Clin Med. 1991;117(1):4450.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Zhao J, Liao D, Yang J, Gregersen H. Viscoelastic behavior of small intestine in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. Dig Dis Sci. 2003;48(12):22712277.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Panda SK, Buist ML. A viscoelastic framework for inflation testing of gastrointestinal tissue. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020;103:103569. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm2019.103569

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Beard JD, Nicholson ML, Sayers RD, Lloyd D, Everson NW. Intraoperative air testing of colorectal anastomoses: a prospective, randomized trial. Br J Surg. 1990;77(10):10951097.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Chu KL, Duffy DJ, Vieson MD, Moore GE. Ex vivo comparison of leakage pressures and leakage location with a novel technique for creation of functional side-to-side canine small intestinal anastomoses. Vet Surg. 2020;49(5):10241034.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Duffy DJ, Chang YJ, Moore GE. Influence of closure technique on leakage pressures in an ex vivo canine typhlectomy model. Vet Surg. 2020;49(6):12131220.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Duffy DJ, Moore GE. Influence of oversewing the transverse staple line during functional end-to-end stapled intestinal anastomoses in dogs. Vet Surg. 2020;49(6):12211229.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Kieves NR, Krebs AI, Zellner EM. A comparison of ex vivo leak pressures for four enterotomy closures in a canine model. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2018;54(2):7176.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Mutascio LM, Breur GJ, Moore GE, Simons MC. Effects of surgical sealant on leakage pressure and circumference of fresh canine cadaver small intestinal anastomoses. Am J Vet Res. 2018;79(12):13351340.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Aeschlimann KA, Mann FA, Middleton JR, Belter RC. Comparison of enterotomy leak pressure among fresh, cooled, and frozen-thawed porcine jejunal segments. Am J Vet Res. 2018;79(5):576580.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Hansen LA, Smeak DD. In vitro comparison of leakage pressure and leakage location for various staple line offset configurations in functional end-to-end stapled small intestinal anastomoses of canine tissues. Am J Vet Res. 2015;76(7):644648.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Shikata J, Shida T, Amino K, Ishioka K. Experimental studies on the hemodynamics of the small intestine following increased intraluminal pressure. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1983;156(2):155160.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Ellison GW. Intestinal obstruction. In: Bojrab M, Monnet E, eds. Mechanisms of Disease in Small Animal Surgery. 3rd ed. Teton NewMedia; 2010:183187.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    Tasaka K, Farrar J. Intraluminal pressure of the small intestine of the unanesthetized dog. Pflugers Arch. 1976;364(1):3544.

  • 47.

    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(3):370373.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    Chiba T, Sarr MG, Kendrick ML, et al. Limitations of implantable, miniature ultrasonic transducers to measure wall movement in the canine jejunum. J Surg Res. 2004;116(2):219226.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    Smith S, McGeehin W, Kozol RA, Giles D. The efficacy of intraoperative methylene blue enemas to assess the integrity of a colonic anastomosis. BMC Surg. 2007;7:15. doi:10.1186/1471-2482-7-15

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50.

    Allaix ME, Lena A, Degiuli M, et al. Intraoperative air leak test reduces the rate of postoperative anastomotic leak: analysis of 777 laparoscopic left-sided colon resections. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(5):15921599.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Volume of saline (0.9% NaCl) solution required to reach maximum peristaltic pressure in cadaveric intact jejunal specimens from dogs of various sizes

Tricia F. Culbertson DVM, MS1, Daniel D. Smeak DVM1, and Sangeeta Rao BVSC, PhD
View More View Less
  • 1 From the Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the volume of saline (0.9% NaCl) solution required to reach a maximum intraluminal peristaltic pressure of 25 mm Hg in dogs of various sizes.

SAMPLES

25 grossly normal jejunal segments from 6 canine cadavers < 20 kg (small dogs) and 25 segments from 5 cadavers ≥ 20 kg (large dogs).

PROCEDURES

Jejunal specimens were obtained within 1.5 hours after euthanasia. Harvested tissue was transected into 12-cm-long segments, mesentery was trimmed, and each segment was measured from the antimesenteric to mesenteric serosal edges. A 10-cm segment was isolated with Doyen forceps, securing a pressure sleeve within the lumen. Intraluminal saline was infused, and the volume was recorded when a pressure of > 25 mm Hg was achieved. Data were analyzed only from specimens in which the pressure remained between 24 and 26 mm Hg for > 5 seconds.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD intestinal measurement for large dogs (17.82 ± 1.44 mm) was greater than that for small dogs (12.38 ± 1.38 mm) as was the volume of saline solution infused (17.56 ± 7.17 mL vs 3.28 ± 1.41 mL, respectively). The volume infused increased by 1.31 mL (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.18) for every 1-mm increase in intestinal measurement and by 1.06 mL (95% CI, 1.052 to 1.068) for every 1-kg increase in body weight.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The volume of saline solution used for intestinal leak testing should be determined on the basis of patient intestinal measurement or body weight. In vivo studies are necessary to establish the optimal volume for intestinal leak testing.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the volume of saline (0.9% NaCl) solution required to reach a maximum intraluminal peristaltic pressure of 25 mm Hg in dogs of various sizes.

SAMPLES

25 grossly normal jejunal segments from 6 canine cadavers < 20 kg (small dogs) and 25 segments from 5 cadavers ≥ 20 kg (large dogs).

PROCEDURES

Jejunal specimens were obtained within 1.5 hours after euthanasia. Harvested tissue was transected into 12-cm-long segments, mesentery was trimmed, and each segment was measured from the antimesenteric to mesenteric serosal edges. A 10-cm segment was isolated with Doyen forceps, securing a pressure sleeve within the lumen. Intraluminal saline was infused, and the volume was recorded when a pressure of > 25 mm Hg was achieved. Data were analyzed only from specimens in which the pressure remained between 24 and 26 mm Hg for > 5 seconds.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD intestinal measurement for large dogs (17.82 ± 1.44 mm) was greater than that for small dogs (12.38 ± 1.38 mm) as was the volume of saline solution infused (17.56 ± 7.17 mL vs 3.28 ± 1.41 mL, respectively). The volume infused increased by 1.31 mL (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.18) for every 1-mm increase in intestinal measurement and by 1.06 mL (95% CI, 1.052 to 1.068) for every 1-kg increase in body weight.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The volume of saline solution used for intestinal leak testing should be determined on the basis of patient intestinal measurement or body weight. In vivo studies are necessary to establish the optimal volume for intestinal leak testing.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Smeak (dan.smeak@colostate.edu).