Back to Journals » Open Access Surgery » Volume 7

Randomized clinical trial comparing manual suture and different models of mechanical suture in the mimicking of bariatric surgery in swine

Authors Fernandes M, Pereira B, Guimarães S, Paganelli A, Pereira C, Batista C

Received 21 August 2013

Accepted for publication 2 October 2013

Published 5 February 2014 Volume 2014:7 Pages 11—18

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OAS.S53366

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3


Marcos AP Fernandes,1 Bruno MT Pereira,2 Sandra M Guimarães,1 Aline Paganelli,3 Carlos Manoel CT Pereira,1 Claudio Sergio Batista4

1Institute of Obesity and Advanced Video Laparoscopic Surgery of Petropolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2Division of Trauma, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil; 3Laboratório de Patologia Micron Cell Diagnóstico, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 4Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine of Petropolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Context and objective: Variations in the ability of surgeons served as motivation for the development of devices that, overcoming individual differences, allow the techniques to be properly performed, and of which the end result was the best possible. Every technique must be reproduced reliably by the majority of surgeons for their results to be adopted and recognized as effective. The aim of this study was to compare the results, from the point of view of anatomic pathology, of manual sutures versus mechanical sutures using different models of linear mechanical staplers, in the procedure of gastroenteroanastomosis and enteroanastomosis in swine.
Methods: Thirty-six healthy, adult, male Sus scrofa domesticus pigs, weighing between 20.7 and 25.5 kg, were used. The swine were randomly divided into four groups of nine pigs, according to the type of suture employed: group A, manual suture with Polysorb® 3-0 wire; group B, 80-shear linear stapler (Covidien® Gia 8038-S); group C, 75-shear linear stapler (Ethicon® Tlc 75); and group D, 75-shear linear stapler (Resource® Yq 75-3). A temporal study was established on the seventh postoperative day for histopathological analysis, and the degree of inflammation, fibrosis, and newly formed vessels, as well as the presence or absence of granulation tissue, foreign body granuloma, and necrosis were all evaluated qualitatively and semiquantitatively. The results were analyzed statistically.
Results: Observations during the histopathological analysis included the formation of foreign body granuloma in the gastroenteroanastomosis and enteroanastomosis in 88.9% of the swine that underwent manual suture and in none of the swine that underwent stapling. There was also a significant statistical difference among swine from Group A, and those from groups B, C and D regarding the degree of inflammation, being more intense in those swine that underwent manual suture.
Conclusion: This study shows that both types of suture promoted proper healing of gastroenteroanastomosis and enteroanastomosis, although there was a higher degree of inflammation and an increased occurrence of foreign body granuloma in swine subjected to manual suture, although there have been similarities in safety, efficiency, and effectiveness between the models of linear mechanical staplers tested during the performance of these anastomoses on swine.

Keywords: linear mechanical stapler, stapler, manual suture, surgery, gastroenteroanastomosis, enteroanastomosis, swine, randomized clinical trial


Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]