Ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of tissue construct strength in an equine colopexy model.

IF 1.3 2区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Hannah M Gaitan, Margaret C Mudge, Alan S Litsky, Andreia G Arruda, Alison K Gardner
{"title":"Ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of tissue construct strength in an equine colopexy model.","authors":"Hannah M Gaitan, Margaret C Mudge, Alan S Litsky, Andreia G Arruda, Alison K Gardner","doi":"10.1111/vsu.14117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare strength of left paramedian colopexies using various techniques in equine ex vivo models.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Experimental study.</p><p><strong>Sample population: </strong>Equine cadavers euthanized for nongastrointestinal pathology (36 specimens derived from 9 horses).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Colopexies were performed after euthanasia. Suture pattern (horizontal mattress vs. cruciate) and incorporation of dorsal sheath of the rectus abdominis (partial-thickness) versus incorporation of dorsal and ventral sheath of the rectus abdominis (full-thickness) were evaluated. Single cycle load to failure, work to peak load, stiffness, and mode of failure of colopexy tissue constructs were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean load to failure of all constructs ranged from 102.26 to 166.38 N. Partial-thickness bites demonstrated a mean load to failure and standard deviation (SD) of 111.91 (35.88) N and 102.26 (30.06) N (p < .05) which was significantly lower than the mean and SD of full-thickness bites (166.3 [72.42] N and 163.21 [51.40 N]), respectively. All full-thickness bites regardless of suture pattern and over half of partial-thickness bites failed at the colonic wall. There was no significant difference in load to failure compared to mode of failure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A stronger colopexy was achieved with a full-thickness bite regardless of the suture pattern. The most common mode of failure was the colon wall.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Incorporating ventral and dorsal fascia of the rectus abdominus provided a stronger colopexy structure, which may necessitate a second incision or subcutaneous palpation of the needle when performing a colopexy. The lateral band of the colon failed in most constructs (77%) regardless of technique, which could weaken the colonic wall and risk colonic rupture.</p>","PeriodicalId":23667,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.14117","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare strength of left paramedian colopexies using various techniques in equine ex vivo models.

Study design: Experimental study.

Sample population: Equine cadavers euthanized for nongastrointestinal pathology (36 specimens derived from 9 horses).

Methods: Colopexies were performed after euthanasia. Suture pattern (horizontal mattress vs. cruciate) and incorporation of dorsal sheath of the rectus abdominis (partial-thickness) versus incorporation of dorsal and ventral sheath of the rectus abdominis (full-thickness) were evaluated. Single cycle load to failure, work to peak load, stiffness, and mode of failure of colopexy tissue constructs were assessed.

Results: Mean load to failure of all constructs ranged from 102.26 to 166.38 N. Partial-thickness bites demonstrated a mean load to failure and standard deviation (SD) of 111.91 (35.88) N and 102.26 (30.06) N (p < .05) which was significantly lower than the mean and SD of full-thickness bites (166.3 [72.42] N and 163.21 [51.40 N]), respectively. All full-thickness bites regardless of suture pattern and over half of partial-thickness bites failed at the colonic wall. There was no significant difference in load to failure compared to mode of failure.

Conclusion: A stronger colopexy was achieved with a full-thickness bite regardless of the suture pattern. The most common mode of failure was the colon wall.

Clinical significance: Incorporating ventral and dorsal fascia of the rectus abdominus provided a stronger colopexy structure, which may necessitate a second incision or subcutaneous palpation of the needle when performing a colopexy. The lateral band of the colon failed in most constructs (77%) regardless of technique, which could weaken the colonic wall and risk colonic rupture.

对马匹结肠整形模型中的组织结构强度进行活体生物力学评估。
目的:比较在马体外模型中使用不同技术进行左侧副结肠切除术的强度:比较在马体外模型中使用不同技术进行左侧副结肠切除术的强度:样本人群方法:在马安乐死后进行结肠切除术:方法:安乐死后进行结肠切除术。评估了缝合模式(水平褥式与十字形)和腹直肌背鞘(部分厚度)与腹直肌背鞘和腹鞘(全厚度)的结合情况。对结肠粘膜组织结构的单循环失效载荷、峰值载荷功、刚度和失效模式进行了评估:结果:所有结构的平均破坏载荷介于 102.26 至 166.38 牛顿之间。部分厚度咬合的平均破坏载荷和标准偏差(SD)分别为 111.91 (35.88) N 和 102.26 (30.06) N(p 结论:结肠假体的破坏载荷和标准偏差(SD)分别为 111.91 (35.88) N 和 102.26 (30.06) N:无论采用哪种缝合方式,全厚咬合都能实现更强的结肠切除术。最常见的失败模式是结肠壁:临床意义:结合腹直肌的腹侧和背侧筋膜可提供更坚固的结肠成形术结构,因此在进行结肠成形术时可能需要进行第二次切口或皮下触针。无论采用哪种技术,大多数结肠外侧带(77%)的构建都失败了,这可能会削弱结肠壁,造成结肠破裂的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Veterinary Surgery
Veterinary Surgery 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
22.20%
发文量
162
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: Veterinary Surgery, the official publication of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons and European College of Veterinary Surgeons, is a source of up-to-date coverage of surgical and anesthetic management of animals, addressing significant problems in veterinary surgery with relevant case histories and observations. It contains original, peer-reviewed articles that cover developments in veterinary surgery, and presents the most current review of the field, with timely articles on surgical techniques, diagnostic aims, care of infections, and advances in knowledge of metabolism as it affects the surgical patient. The journal places new developments in perspective, encompassing new concepts and peer commentary to help better understand and evaluate the surgical patient.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信