title: Single-layer versus double-layer laparoscopic intracorporeally sutured gastrointestinal anastomoses in the canine model.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this study was to compare the gross and histopathologic changes following 1- versus 2-layer hand-sewn suture techniques in laparoscopic gastrointestinal anastomosis in dogs.
  
  
  METHODS
  This was an experimental prospective study of 16 healthy mixed breed male and female dogs. Animals were randomly divided into 2 groups. Two-layer side-to-side hand-sewn laparoscopic gastrojejunostomies were performed in group A, so that simple interrupted sutures were placed in the outer layer and simple continuous suture was used in the inner layer. The 1-layer simple continuous anastomosis between the stomach and jejunum was done in group B precisely. Specimen were collected from the sites of anastomosis, and H&E statining was performed for light microscopic studies.
  
  
  RESULTS
  All animals survived the surgery. There was no gross inflammation, ischemia, apparent granulation tissue, abscess or fistula formation, leakage or stricture formation, and all sites of anastomosis were patent. Several adhesion formations were found in the abdomen with the higher incidence in the control group. Mean scores of leukocyte infiltration and granulation tissue formation at the sites of anastomosis were statistically insignificant between groups (P>0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Gross and histopathologic findings revealed that hand-sewn laparoscopic gastrointestinal anastomosis with the 1-layer suture technique is comparable to the 2-layer suture technique.
authors: Department of Clinical Sciences, Islamic Azad University-Garmsar Branch, Iran.
authors: Azine
authors: A
authors: Tavakoli
authors: Jalal
authors: J
authors: Bakhtiari
authors: Ali Reza
authors: AR
authors: Khalaj
authors: Mohammad Javad
authors: MJ
authors: Gharagozlou
authors: Abbas
authors: A
authors: Veshkini
references: Vet Surg. 2005 Jan-Feb;34(1):47-54
references: 15720596
references: Surg Endosc. 1997 Jun;11(6):650-2
references: 9171126
references: Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1995 Aug;5(4):281-7
references: 7551280
references: Obes Surg. 2007 Jan;17(1):15-8
references: 17355763
references: Langenbecks Arch Chir. 1994;379(2):95-8
references: 8196435
references: Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994 Apr;4(2):146-8
references: 8180768
references: Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2005 Jan-Feb;46(1):57-62
references: 15693561
references: Am J Surg. 2004 Nov;188(5):606-10
references: 15546580
references: Dig Surg. 1998;15(2):145-7
references: 9845577
references: Scand J Surg. 2003;92(3):200-2
references: 14582541
references: Br J Surg. 2006 Feb;93(2):195-204
references: 16392101
references: Arch Surg. 2003 Feb;138(2):181-4
references: 12578417
references: Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1976 Oct;143(4):619-24
references: 785647
references: Zentralbl Chir. 1995;120(5):409-14
references: 7610731
references: Surg Endosc. 1994 Dec;8(12):1395-8
references: 7878504
references: J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003 Jul 1;223(1):73-7
references: 12839067
references: Surg Endosc. 2000 Jan;14(1):27-31
references: 10653231
references: Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1992 Sep;2(3):248-53
references: 1341540
references: J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2004 Mar 15;224(6):875-8, 865
references: 15070057
references: Gastric Cancer. 2003;6(1):64-8
references: 12673429
references: Magy Seb. 2005 Apr;58(2):106-10
references: 16018277
references: J Surg Oncol. 2005 Jul 1;91(1):26-32
references: 15999355
references: Obes Surg. 2000 Oct;10(5):420-7
references: 11054246
references: Surg Endosc. 2007 Apr;21(4):665-8
references: 17285374
references: Surg Endosc. 2006 Nov;20(11):1687-92
references: 16960681