1.5:1 Meshed AlloDerm Bolsters for Stapled Rectal Anastomoses Does Not Provide Any Advantage in Anastomotic Strength in a Porcine Model

Abstract

Introduction: The most feared complication of colorectal anastomoses is leaks resulting in severe morbidity. The concept of staple-line reinforcement is a growing area of interest. In this study, the authors evaluated the feasibility and effect of using 1.5:1 meshed AlloDerm to bolster end-to-end stapled rectal anastomoses in a porcine model. Methods: A total of 30 female 45-kg domestic pigs were studied, and each served as its own control by creating a bolstered and unbolstered anastomosis in each animal. All anastomoses were created with a 29-mm end-to-end stapling device. Bolstered anastomoses were randomized to proximal and distal positions along the rectum, and each rectorectal anastomosis was separated by an average of 10 cm. The animals were survived to 3, 5, and 30 days. Barium enemas were then performed and the 2 anastomotic sites harvested. Each anastomosis underwent burst testing. The internal diameter of each anastomosis was measured, and a biochemical analysis was performed for elastin and collagen content. Results: Bolstered anastomoses offered no strength advantage as burst pressures were no different when compared with unbolstered anastomoses. There was also no difference in anastomotic internal diameter, biochemical analysis of elastin or collagen, or presence of adhesions when comparing bolstered with unbolstered anastomoses. There were 4 subclinical leaks—1 in the unbolstered group and 3 in the bolstered group. Conclusions: The routine use of 1.5:1 meshed AlloDerm sandwich bolsters in stapled rectal anastomosis does not confer any detectable advantage in anastomotic strength. Further studies are needed to determine equivalence to traditional stapled anastomoses.

Keywords

anastomosis bolster colorectal surgery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Pickleman J. , Watson W. , Cunningham J. , Fisher SG , Gamelli R. The failed gastrointestinal anastomosis: an inevitable catastrophe? J Am Coll Surg. 1999 ;188:473-482.

Kockerling F. , Rose J. , Schneider C. , et al. Laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis: risk of postoperative leakage. Results of a multicenter study. The Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Study Group (LCSSG). Surg Endosc. 1999;13:639-644.

Moran BJ , Heald RJ Anastomotic leakage after colorectal anastomosis. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000;18:244-248.

Franklin ME , Berghoff KE , Arellano PP , Trevino JM , Abrego-Medina D. Safety and efficacy of the use of bioabsorbable seamguard in colorectal surgery at the Texas Endosurgery Institute. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2005;15:9-13.

Feinberg SM , Parker F. , Cohen Z. , et al. The double stapling technique for low anterior resection of rectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 1986;29:885-890.

Miller K. , Moritz E. Circular stapling techniques for low anterior resection of rectal carcinoma . Hepatogastroenterology. 1996;43:823-831.

Rullier E. , Laurent C. , Garrelon JL , Michel P. , Saric J. , Parneix M. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of rectal cancer . Br J Surg. 1998;85:355-358.

Laxamana A. , Solomon MJ , Cohen Z. , Feinberg SM , Stern HS , McLeod RS Long-term results of anterior resection using double-stapling technique. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:1246-1250.

Walker KG , Bell SW , Rickard MJ , et al. Anastomotic leakage is predictive of diminished survival after potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2004;240:255-259.

10.

Bruce J. , Krukowski ZH , Al- Khairy G. , Russell EM , Park KG Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg. 2001;88:1157-1168.

11.

Choi HK , Law WL , Ho JW Leakage after resection and intraperitoneal anastomosis for colorectal malignancy: analysis of risk factors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:1719-1725.

12.

Alberts JC , Parvaiz A. , Moran BJ Predicting risk and diminishing the consequences of anastomotic dehiscence following rectal resection. Colorectal Dis. 2003;5:478-482.

13.

Konishi T. , Watanabe T. , Kishimoto J. , Nagawa H. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after surgery for colorectal cancer: results prospective surveillance. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202:439-444.

14.

Koperna T. Cost-effectiveness of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resections for rectal cancer. Arch Surg. 2003; 138:1334-1338.

15.

Docherty JG , McGregor JR , Akyol AM , Murray GD , Galloway DJ Comparison of manually constructed and stapled anastomoses in colorectal surgery. West of Scotland and Highland Anastomosis Study Group. Ann Surg. 1995;221:176-184.

16.

Branagan G. , Finnis D. ; Wessex Colorectal Cancer Audit Working Group. Prognosis after anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48: 1021-1026.

17.

McArdle CS , McMillan DC , Hole DJ Impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival of patients undergoing curative resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2005;92:1150-1154.

18.

Kingham TP , Pachter HL Colonic anastomotic leak: risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208: 269-278.

19.

Stewart D. , Perrone J. , Pierce R. , et al. Evaluation of unmeshed and 1:1 meshed AlloDerm bolster for stapled rectal anastomoses in a porcine model. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2008;18:616-625.

20.

Senagore A. , Milsom J. , Walshaw RK , Dunston R. , Chaudry IH Direct comparison between Czerny-Lembert and circular-stapled anastomotic techniques in colorectal anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992;35:862-869.

21.

Lustosa SA , Matos D. , Atallah AN , Castro AA Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD003144.

22.

Lustosa SA , Matos D. , Atallah AN , Castro AA Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. Sao Paulo Med J. 2002;120:132-136.