Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Veterinary Medicine International
Volume 2010 (2010), Article ID 139610, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.4061/2010/139610
Research Article

A Comparison of Two Anastomotic Techniques in the Jejunum of the Goat

1Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor 43400, Malaysia
2Medical School, SEGi University College, 47810 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
3Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Baghdad University, 1963 Al-aameria, Baghdad, Iraq

Received 3 August 2010; Revised 13 October 2010; Accepted 15 October 2010

Academic Editor: Nigel R. Perkins

Copyright © 2010 H. A. Al-Timmemi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. G. H. Ballantyne, “The experimental basis of intestinal suturing. Effect of surgical technique, inflammation, and infection on enteric wound healing,” Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 61–71, 1984. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. J. G. Docherty, J. R. McGregor, A. M. Akyol, G. D. Murray, and D. J. Galloway, “Comparison of manually constructed and stapled anastomoses in colorectal surgery,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 221, no. 2, pp. 176–184, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. J. E. Nieto, J. E. Dechant, and J. R. Snyder, “Comparison of one-layer (continuous Lembert) versus two-layer (simple continuous/Cushing) hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis in equine jejunum,” Veterinary Surgery, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 669–673, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. D. Ikeuchi, H. Onodera, T. Aung et al., “Correlation of tensile strength with bursting pressure in the evaluation of intestinal anastomosis,” Digestive Surgery, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 478–485, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. N. H. Booth and L. E. McDonald, Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA, 6th edition, 1988.
  6. J. F. Hulka, K. Omran, and G. S. Berger, “Classification of adnexal adhesions: a proposal and evaluation of its prognostic value,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 661–665, 1978. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. Z. Cetinkaya, K. Esen, I. H. Ozercan, B. Ustundag, R. Ayten, and E. Aygen, “The effect of Bosentan on healing of colonic anastomosis,” World Journal of Emergency Surgery, vol. 1, no. 1, article no. 37, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. S. M. García-Osogobio, T. Takahashi-Monroy, L. Velasco, M. Gaxiola, A. Sotres-Vega, and P. Santillán-Doherty, “Single-layer colonic anastomoses using polyglyconate (Maxon) vs. two-layer anastomoses using chromic catgut and silk,” Revista de Investigacion Clinica, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 198–203, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. A. Cihan, F. Armutcu, B. H. Uçan et al., “Comparison of the measurement methods of bursting pressure of intestinal anastomoses,” Hepato-Gastroenterology, vol. 50, supplement 2, pp. cc32–cc34, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. Krasniqi, L. Gashi-Luci, S. Krasniqi et al., “A comparison of three single layer anastomotic techniques in the colon of the rat,” International Journal of Surgery, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 31–35, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. A. J. McAdams, G. Meikle, and R. Medina, “An experimental comparison of inversion and eversion colonic anastomoses,” Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 1969. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. E. R. Singer, M. A. Livesey, I. K. Barker, M. B. Hurtig, and P. D. Conlon, “Utilization of the serosal scarification model of postoperative intestinal adhesion formation to investigate potential adhesion-preventing substances in the rabbit,” Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, vol. 60, pp. 305–311, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  13. A. H. DeCherney and G. S. DiZerega, “Clinical problem of intraperitoneal postsurgical adhesion formation following general surgery and the use of adhesion prevention barriers,” Surgical Clinics of North America, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 671–688, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. H. Ellis, “The clinical significance of adhesions: focus on intestinal obstruction,” The European Journal of Surgery, no. 577, supplement, pp. 5–9, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. L. Holmdahl, B. Risberg, D. E. Beck et al., “Adhesions: pathogenesis and prevention-panel discussion and summary,” The European Journal of Surgery, no. 577, Supplement, pp. 56–62, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. W. F. Seifert, A. A. J. Verhofstad, T. Wobbes et al., “Quantitation of angiogenesis in healing anastomoes of the rat colon,” Experimental and Molecular Pathology, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 31–40, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus