Effects of Duraseal (R) and Fibrin Glue on healing of normal and ischemic colon anastomosis
Loading...
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
dc.identifier.issn
dc.identifier.doi
10.26650/IstanbulJPharm.2019.0012
dc.identifier.other
dc.description.volume
50
dc.description.issue
2
AUG
AUG
Publisher
ISTANBUL UNIV, FAC PHARMACY
DOI
10.26650/IstanbulJPharm.2019.0012
Abstract
Background and Aims: Anastomotic leaks represent a major complication of colorectal surgery. This study, involving a rat model of normal and ischemic colon anastomosis, aims to compare the effects of Duraseal (R) with those of Fibrin Glue (FG). Methods: Fifty adult male Wistar Albino rats were divided into six groups
normal colon anastomosis, ischemic colon anastomosis, FG on normal colon anastomosis, Duraseal (R) on normal colon anastomosis, FG on ischemic colon anastomosis, Duraseal (R) on ischemic colon anastomosis. After scarification, bursting pressure were measured and samples were collected for histopathological examination and hydroxyproline assays. Results: While the mean bursting pressure was statistically higher in groups treated with Duraseal (R) when compared to controls (p 0.05), no significant differences between Duraseal (R) and FG were detected (p 0.05). The mean hydroxyproline level was significantly lower in the Duraseal (R) groups than in the FG groups (p<0.05). However, significant differences between Duraseal (R) and control groups were found only in ischemic colon anastomosis (p<0.05). Histopathological examinations did not show any differences in wound healing. Conclusion: Considering the advantages associated with the use of Duraseal (R), we may assume that it may play role in gastrointestinal surgery with respect to prevention of anastomotic leaks. However, data is limited, and further studies are warranted to better define its place in surgery.
normal colon anastomosis, ischemic colon anastomosis, FG on normal colon anastomosis, Duraseal (R) on normal colon anastomosis, FG on ischemic colon anastomosis, Duraseal (R) on ischemic colon anastomosis. After scarification, bursting pressure were measured and samples were collected for histopathological examination and hydroxyproline assays. Results: While the mean bursting pressure was statistically higher in groups treated with Duraseal (R) when compared to controls (p 0.05), no significant differences between Duraseal (R) and FG were detected (p 0.05). The mean hydroxyproline level was significantly lower in the Duraseal (R) groups than in the FG groups (p<0.05). However, significant differences between Duraseal (R) and control groups were found only in ischemic colon anastomosis (p<0.05). Histopathological examinations did not show any differences in wound healing. Conclusion: Considering the advantages associated with the use of Duraseal (R), we may assume that it may play role in gastrointestinal surgery with respect to prevention of anastomotic leaks. However, data is limited, and further studies are warranted to better define its place in surgery.