Does a proximal colostomy affect colorectal anastomotic healing?

Anthony Senagore, Jeffrey W. Milsom, Richard K. Walshaw, Robert Dunstan, Irshad H. Chaudry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Fecal diversion has been implicated as an etiologic factor in anastomotic stenosis following colorectal surgery, particularly following the use of circular anastomotic stapling devices. However, experimental confirmation of the effects of fecal diversion on anastomotic healing is virtually nonexistent. The purpose of this study was to serially evaluate colorectal anastomotic healing with proximal colostomy (COL) and without it (CON; control) using two anastomotic techniques in a porcine model. Fifty-two (28 CON; 24 COL) mixed-breed female pigs had colorectal anastomoses using either a two-layer handsewn (HS) or an EFA®(U.S. Surgical Corporation, Norwalk, CT) circular stapled (CS) technique. Anastomotic blood flow was measured using laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV). At second surgery (5, 11, 60, or 120 days post-operatively), the following data were collected: repeat LDV, gross and microscopic anastomotic inflammatory scores, anastomotic diameter, and bursting pressure. There were no significant differences in anastomotic blood flow (LDV), inflammatory scores, or incidence of leak or stenosis between the CON and COL groups or between anastomotic techniques. Bursting pressure was significantly lower for the COL group at day 11 but not any other postoperative day (POD). Proximal colostomy does not appear to exert adverse effects on colorectal anastomotic healing. The choice of colorectal anastomotic technique should not be influenced by the need for proximal colostomy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)182-188
Number of pages7
JournalDiseases of the Colon and Rectum
Volume35
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1992
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Colostomy
Laser-Doppler Flowmetry
Pathologic Constriction
Swine
Pressure
Colorectal Surgery
Equipment and Supplies
Incidence

Keywords

  • Colorectal anastomotic technique and proximal colostomy
  • Fecal diversion and anastomotic healing
  • Proximal colostomy and anastomotic healing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Senagore, A., Milsom, J. W., Walshaw, R. K., Dunstan, R., & Chaudry, I. H. (1992). Does a proximal colostomy affect colorectal anastomotic healing? Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 35(2), 182-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050676

Does a proximal colostomy affect colorectal anastomotic healing? / Senagore, Anthony; Milsom, Jeffrey W.; Walshaw, Richard K.; Dunstan, Robert; Chaudry, Irshad H.

In: Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, Vol. 35, No. 2, 02.1992, p. 182-188.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Senagore, A, Milsom, JW, Walshaw, RK, Dunstan, R & Chaudry, IH 1992, 'Does a proximal colostomy affect colorectal anastomotic healing?', Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 182-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050676
Senagore, Anthony ; Milsom, Jeffrey W. ; Walshaw, Richard K. ; Dunstan, Robert ; Chaudry, Irshad H. / Does a proximal colostomy affect colorectal anastomotic healing?. In: Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. 1992 ; Vol. 35, No. 2. pp. 182-188.
@article{87483df69e664c00a541eb17311e55dc,
title = "Does a proximal colostomy affect colorectal anastomotic healing?",
abstract = "Fecal diversion has been implicated as an etiologic factor in anastomotic stenosis following colorectal surgery, particularly following the use of circular anastomotic stapling devices. However, experimental confirmation of the effects of fecal diversion on anastomotic healing is virtually nonexistent. The purpose of this study was to serially evaluate colorectal anastomotic healing with proximal colostomy (COL) and without it (CON; control) using two anastomotic techniques in a porcine model. Fifty-two (28 CON; 24 COL) mixed-breed female pigs had colorectal anastomoses using either a two-layer handsewn (HS) or an EFA{\circledR}(U.S. Surgical Corporation, Norwalk, CT) circular stapled (CS) technique. Anastomotic blood flow was measured using laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV). At second surgery (5, 11, 60, or 120 days post-operatively), the following data were collected: repeat LDV, gross and microscopic anastomotic inflammatory scores, anastomotic diameter, and bursting pressure. There were no significant differences in anastomotic blood flow (LDV), inflammatory scores, or incidence of leak or stenosis between the CON and COL groups or between anastomotic techniques. Bursting pressure was significantly lower for the COL group at day 11 but not any other postoperative day (POD). Proximal colostomy does not appear to exert adverse effects on colorectal anastomotic healing. The choice of colorectal anastomotic technique should not be influenced by the need for proximal colostomy.",
keywords = "Colorectal anastomotic technique and proximal colostomy, Fecal diversion and anastomotic healing, Proximal colostomy and anastomotic healing",
author = "Anthony Senagore and Milsom, {Jeffrey W.} and Walshaw, {Richard K.} and Robert Dunstan and Chaudry, {Irshad H.}",
year = "1992",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1007/BF02050676",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "182--188",
journal = "Diseases of the Colon and Rectum",
issn = "0012-3706",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does a proximal colostomy affect colorectal anastomotic healing?

AU - Senagore, Anthony

AU - Milsom, Jeffrey W.

AU - Walshaw, Richard K.

AU - Dunstan, Robert

AU - Chaudry, Irshad H.

PY - 1992/2

Y1 - 1992/2

N2 - Fecal diversion has been implicated as an etiologic factor in anastomotic stenosis following colorectal surgery, particularly following the use of circular anastomotic stapling devices. However, experimental confirmation of the effects of fecal diversion on anastomotic healing is virtually nonexistent. The purpose of this study was to serially evaluate colorectal anastomotic healing with proximal colostomy (COL) and without it (CON; control) using two anastomotic techniques in a porcine model. Fifty-two (28 CON; 24 COL) mixed-breed female pigs had colorectal anastomoses using either a two-layer handsewn (HS) or an EFA®(U.S. Surgical Corporation, Norwalk, CT) circular stapled (CS) technique. Anastomotic blood flow was measured using laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV). At second surgery (5, 11, 60, or 120 days post-operatively), the following data were collected: repeat LDV, gross and microscopic anastomotic inflammatory scores, anastomotic diameter, and bursting pressure. There were no significant differences in anastomotic blood flow (LDV), inflammatory scores, or incidence of leak or stenosis between the CON and COL groups or between anastomotic techniques. Bursting pressure was significantly lower for the COL group at day 11 but not any other postoperative day (POD). Proximal colostomy does not appear to exert adverse effects on colorectal anastomotic healing. The choice of colorectal anastomotic technique should not be influenced by the need for proximal colostomy.

AB - Fecal diversion has been implicated as an etiologic factor in anastomotic stenosis following colorectal surgery, particularly following the use of circular anastomotic stapling devices. However, experimental confirmation of the effects of fecal diversion on anastomotic healing is virtually nonexistent. The purpose of this study was to serially evaluate colorectal anastomotic healing with proximal colostomy (COL) and without it (CON; control) using two anastomotic techniques in a porcine model. Fifty-two (28 CON; 24 COL) mixed-breed female pigs had colorectal anastomoses using either a two-layer handsewn (HS) or an EFA®(U.S. Surgical Corporation, Norwalk, CT) circular stapled (CS) technique. Anastomotic blood flow was measured using laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV). At second surgery (5, 11, 60, or 120 days post-operatively), the following data were collected: repeat LDV, gross and microscopic anastomotic inflammatory scores, anastomotic diameter, and bursting pressure. There were no significant differences in anastomotic blood flow (LDV), inflammatory scores, or incidence of leak or stenosis between the CON and COL groups or between anastomotic techniques. Bursting pressure was significantly lower for the COL group at day 11 but not any other postoperative day (POD). Proximal colostomy does not appear to exert adverse effects on colorectal anastomotic healing. The choice of colorectal anastomotic technique should not be influenced by the need for proximal colostomy.

KW - Colorectal anastomotic technique and proximal colostomy

KW - Fecal diversion and anastomotic healing

KW - Proximal colostomy and anastomotic healing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026539034&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026539034&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF02050676

DO - 10.1007/BF02050676

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 182

EP - 188

JO - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

JF - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

SN - 0012-3706

IS - 2

ER -