Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20354808›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2010

Anastomotic sealing by extracellular matrices (ECM) improves healing of colonic anastomoses in the critical early phase.

Jens Hoeppner, Bettina Wassmuth, Goran Marjanovic, Sylvia Timme, Ulrich Theodor Hopt, Tobias Keck

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. External coating of colonic anastomoses: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2012
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. New Technologies to Prevent Anastomotic Leak.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2021
    Review
  7. Comparison of the efficacy of growth factor collagen and antibiotic collagen on colon anastomosis in  experimental animals with peritonitis.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A highly elastic and adhesive gelatin tissue sealant for gastrointestinal surgery and colon anastomosis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2012
    Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jens HoeppnerDepartment for General and Visceral Surgery, University of Freiburg, Hugstettter Str 55, 79106 Freiburg, Germany. jens.hoeppner@uniklinik-freiburg.de
Bettina Wassmuth
Goran Marjanovic
Sylvia Timme
Ulrich Theodor Hopt
Tobias Keck
University of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtracellular matrices have proven potential for in vivo tissue regeneration at gastrointestinal luminal organs. In this study, small intestinal submucosa (SIS) was tested as a sealant for colonic anastomoses in a rodent model.

methodsIn the rodent model, standard colonic anastomoses in the control group (CG; n = 30) and anastomoses sealed by omentum (n = 30) were compared to SIS-sealed anastomoses in the study group (SG; n = 30). After 4-, 30-, and 90-day macroscopic and microscopic healing, bursting pressure and anastomotic stricture rate were evaluated.

resultsThe rate of anastomotic dehiscence was 1/10 after 4 days and 0/10 after 30 and 90 days in all groups. In the SG, the bursting pressure was significantly increased after 4 days compared to CG (148 +/- 9 vs. 108 +/- 8 mmHg; p > 0.05). Histologically, after 4 days of neovascularization, fibroblast ingrowth and collagen deposition were significantly increased in SG compared to CG. After 30 days, nonsignificant differences were noted in all three parameters. Adhesion rate and anastomotic stricture rate were not significantly affected by SIS sealing after 4, 30, and 90 days.

conclusionEspecially in the critical phase of anastomotic healing up to day 4, anastomotic healing was improved by SIS sealing. SIS sealing did not cause long-term complications.

Indexed as

Extracellular MatrixWound HealingAnastomosis, SurgicalAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaCollagenColonIntestine, SmallMaleModels, AnimalOmentumRatsRats, WistarTime FactorsTissue AdhesivesTreatment OutcomeCollagenTissue Adhesives

Identifiers

PMID20354808
OpenAlexW2045838422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.