175
Abstract Views
59
PDF Download
Histology

Analysis of continuous and figure of eight suture techniques on the healing of duodenal perforation

Eko Setiawan Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Indonesia Correspondence drekosetiawan@unissula.ac.id
,
Dimas Irfan Nabih Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Indonesia Correspondence dimas16368@gmail.com
,
Akmal Siradj Prahendra Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Indonesia Correspondence akmal.siradjp@gmail.com
,
Kiki Bangun Wijaya Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Indonesia Correspondence kikibangunwijaya1456@gmail.com
,
Asa Akbar Ahmad Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Indonesia Correspondence asaakbar.45.aa@gmail.com
,
Affiq Miftah Salsabil Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Indonesia Correspondence affiqmsalsabil@gmail.com
,
Wildan Praga Abdillah Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Indonesia Correspondence pragawildan@gmail.com
Pages 221-233
Browse this journal

Abstract

Duodenal perforation is a rare but potentially life-threatening gastrointestinal emergency. This study aimed to evaluate the healing of duodenal perforations both macroscopically and microscopically in rats sutured with figure-of-eight and continuous techniques compared with interrupted sutures. A total of 24 rats underwent a 10-mm longitudinal incision in the small intestine and were divided into four groups: sham, control with interrupted sutures, treatment group 1 (continuous technique), and treatment group 2 (figure-of-eight technique). Healing was assessed macroscopically by measuring bursting pressure and microscopically through fibroblast count and collagen density on histopathological examination at day 7. The figure-of-eight group demonstrated a significantly higher bursting pressure (177.5 ± 86.7 mmHg) compared with the control group (85.3 ± 55.7 mmHg, p < 0.05). Both the continuous and figure-of-eight groups showed significantly higher fibroblast counts and collagen density compared with the control group (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference in bursting pressure was observed between the continuous and control groups (p > 0.05). These findings indicate that both the figure-of-eight and continuous suturing techniques enhance microscopic healing parameters of duodenal perforation compared with the interrupted technique, while at the macroscopic level only the figure-of-eight technique provides significantly greater wound healing strength.

There is no Figure or data content available for this article

References

  • 1. Amini A, Lopez RA. Duodenal Perforation. Statpearls; 2024. Accessed July 30, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553084/
  • 2. Dadfar A, Edna TH. Epidemiology of perforating peptic ulcer: A population-based retrospective study over 40 years. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(35):5302-5313. doi:10.3748/wjg.v26.i35.5302
  • 3. Bojanapu S, Malani RA, Ray S, Mangla V, Mehta N, Nundy S. Duodenal Perforation: Outcomes after Surgical Management at a Tertiary Care Centre-A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study. Surg Res Pract. 2020;2020:8392716. doi:10.1155/2020/8392716
  • 4. Mittelstädt A, von Loeffelholz T, Weber K, et al. Influence of interrupted versus continuous suture technique on intestinal anastomotic leakage rate in patients with Crohn’s disease — a propensity score matched analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2022;37(10):2245-2253. doi:10.1007/s00384-022-04252-1
  • 5. Hussain A, Mahmood H, El-Hasani S. Continuous Figure-of-Eight Suturing in Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Anastomosis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23295179
  • 6. Witte MB, Saupe J, Reiner J, et al. Ileocolonic Healing after Small Ileocecal Resection in Mice: NOD2 Deficiency Impairs Anastomotic Healing by Local Mechanisms. J Clin Med. 2023;12(10). doi:10.3390/jcm12103601
  • 7. Mathew-Steiner SS, Roy S, Sen CK. Collagen in wound healing. Bioengineering. 2021;8(5). doi:10.3390/bioengineering8050063
  • 8. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: The arrive guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
  • 9. Shin D, Rahimi H, Haroon S, et al. Imaging of Gastrointestinal Tract Perforation. Radiol Clin North Am. 2020;58(1):19-44. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2019.08.004
  • 10. Bojanapu S, Malani RA, Ray S, Mangla V, Mehta N, Nundy S. Duodenal Perforation: Outcomes after Surgical Management at a Tertiary Care Centre—A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study. Surg Res Pract. 2020;2020:1-8. doi:10.1155/2020/8392716
  • 11. Wallace HA, Basehore BM, Zito PM. Wound Healing Phases. Statpearls; 2024.
  • 12. Kar S, Mohapatra V, Singh S, Rath PK, Behera TR. Single layered versus double layered intestinal anastomosis: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2017;11(6):PC01-PC04. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/24817.9983
  • 13. Eickhoff R, Eickhoff SB, Katurman S, et al. Influence of suture technique on anastomotic leakage rate—a retrospective analyses comparing interrupted—versus continuous—sutures. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34(1):55-61. doi:10.1007/s00384-018-3168-6
  • 14. Steger J, Jell A, Ficht S, Ostler D, Eblenkamp M, Mela P, Wilhelm D. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Colorectal Anastomotic Techniques. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2022 May 4;18:523-539. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S335102. PMID: 35548666; PMCID: PMC9081039.
  • 15. Wallace B, Schuepbach F, Gaukel S, Marwan AI, Staerkle RF, Vuille-Dit-Bille RN. Evidence according to Cochrane Systematic Reviews on Alterable Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage in Colorectal Surgery. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2020 Jan 3;2020:9057963. doi: 10.1155/2020/9057963. PMID: 32411206; PMCID: PMC7199605.
  • 16. Lam A, Fleischer B, Alverdy J. The Biology of Anastomotic Healing-the Unknown Overwhelms the Known. J Gastrointest Surg. 2020 Sep;24(9):2160-2166. doi: 10.1007/s11605-020-04680-w. Epub 2020 Jun 10. PMID: 32524361; PMCID: PMC7446770.
  • 17. Morgan RB, Shogan BD. The Science of Anastomotic Healing. Semin Colon Rectal Surg. 2022 Jun;33(2):100879. doi: 10.1016/j.scrs.2022.100879. Epub 2022 Mar 8. PMID: 35937614; PMCID: PMC9355065.
  • 18. Man J, Hrabe J. Anastomotic Technique-How to Optimize Success and Minimize Leak Rates. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2021 Nov 23;34(6):371-378. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1735267. PMID: 34853557; PMCID: PMC8610634.
  • 19. MacRae HM, McLeod RS. Handsewn vs. stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998 Feb;41(2):180-9. doi: 10.1007/BF02238246. PMID: 9556242.
  • 20. Nordholm-Carstensen A, Schnack Rasmussen M, Krarup PM. Increased Leak Rates Following Stapled Versus Handsewn Ileocolic Anastomosis in Patients with Right-Sided Colon Cancer: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019 May;62(5):542-548. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001289. PMID: 30489322.
  • 21. Naumann DN, Bhangu A, Kelly M, Bowley DM. Stapled versus handsewn intestinal anastomosis in emergency laparotomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2015 Apr;157(4):609-18. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.09.030. Epub 2015 Feb 27. PMID: 25731781.
  • 22. Le KDR, Martin K, Read D. The impact of stapled compared to handsewn repair on anastomotic outcomes in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2024 Apr;94(4):604-613. doi: 10.1111/ans.18925. Epub 2024 Mar 8. PMID: 38456319.
  • 23. Shikata S, Yamagishi H, Taji Y, Shimada T, Noguchi Y. Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg. 2006 Jan 27;6:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-6-2. PMID: 16438733; PMCID: PMC1373646.
  • 24. Okafor DK, Katyal G, Kaur G, Ashraf H, Bodapati AP, Hanif A, Khan S. Single-Layer or Double-Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Cureus. 2023 Oct 8;15(10):e46697. doi: 10.7759/cureus.46697. PMID: 38021792; PMCID: PMC10631554.
  • 25. Burch JM, Franciose RJ, Moore EE, Biffl WL, Offner PJ. Single-layer continuous versus two-layer interrupted intestinal anastomosis: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2000 Jun;231(6):832-7. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200006000-00007. PMID: 10816626; PMCID: PMC1421072.
  • 26. Aniruthan D, Pranavi AR, Sreenath GS, Kate V. Efficacy of single layered intestinal anastomosis over double layered intestinal anastomosis-an open labelled, randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Surgery [Internet]. 2020 May 5;78:173–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.066
  • 27. Mittelstädt, A., von Loeffelholz, T., Weber, K. et al. Influence of interrupted versus continuous suture technique on intestinal anastomotic leakage rate in patients with Crohn’s disease — a propensity score matched analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 37, 2245–2253 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-022-04252-1
  • 28. Velotti N, Manigrasso M, Di Lauro K, Vertaldi S, Anoldo P, Vitiello A, et al. Barbed suture in gastro-intestinal surgery: A review with a meta-analysis. The Surgeon [Internet]. 2021 Apr 2;20(2):115–22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2021.02.011
  • 29. Ikeuchi D, Onodera H, Aung T, Kan S, Kawamoto K, Imamura M, Maetani S. Correlation of tensile strength with bursting pressure in the evaluation of intestinal anastomosis. Dig Surg. 1999;16(6):478-85. doi: 10.1159/000018773. PMID: 10805547.
  • 30. Slieker JC, Daams F, Mulder IM, Jeekel J, Lange JF. Systematic Review of the Technique of Colorectal Anastomosis. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(2):190–201. doi:10.1001/2013.jamasurg.33
There is no Supplemental content for this article.

How to Cite This

Setiawan, E., Nabih, D. I., Prahendra, A. S., Wijaya, K. B., Ahmad, A. A., Salsabil, A. M., & Abdillah, W. P. (2025). Analysis of continuous and figure of eight suture techniques on the healing of duodenal perforation. Jurnal Teknologi Laboratorium, 14(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.29238/teknolabjournal.v14i2.607

Article Metrics

Download Statistics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Other Statistics

Verify authenticity via CrossMark

Copyright and Permissions

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Publishing your paper with Jurnal Teknologi Laboratorium (JTL) means that the author or authors retain the copyright in the paper. JTL granted an exclusive reuse license by the author(s), but the author(s) are able to put the paper onto a website, distribute it to colleagues, give it to students, use it in your thesis etc, even commercially. The author(s) can reuse the figures and tables and other information contained in their paper published by JTL in future papers or work without having to ask anyone for permission, provided that the figures, tables or other information that is included in the new paper or work properly references the published paper as the source of the figures, tables or other information, and the new paper or work is not direct at private monetary gain or commercial advantage.

JTL journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. This license lets others remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

JTL journal Open Access articles are distributed under this Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA). Articles can be read and shared for All purposes under the following conditions:

  • BY: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • SA:  If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Data Availability

All data generated during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].