ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2015
Vascular anatomy of the small intestine-a comparative anatomic study on humans and pigs.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enteric glial cell network function is required for epithelial barrier restitution following intestinal ischemic injury in the early postnatal period.American journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology · 2024Article
- Development and evaluation of artificial organ models for ERCP training in patients with surgically altered anatomies.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Review
- Impairment of Mesenteric Perfusion as a Marker of Major Bleeding in Trauma Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Comparative angiotomographic study of swine vascular anatomy: contributions to research and training models in vascular and endovascular surgery.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2021Article
- Hepatocyte Transplantation to the Liver via the Splenic Artery in a Juvenile Large Animal Model.Cell transplantation · 2019Article
- In vivo photoacoustic imaging of major blood vessels in the pancreas and liver during surgery.Journal of biomedical optics · 2019Article
- Evaluation of endoscopic visible light spectroscopy: comparison with microvascular oxygen tension measurements in a porcine model.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPorcine models are well established for studying intestinal anastomotic healing. In this study, we aimed to clarify the anatomic differences between human and porcine small intestines. Additionally, we investigated the influences of longitudinal and circular sutures on human small intestine perfusion.
methodsIntestines were obtained from human cadavers (n = 8; small intestine, n = 51) and from pigs (n = 10; small intestine, n = 60). Vascularization was visualized with mennige gelatin perfusion and high-resolution mammography. Endothelial cell density was analyzed with immunohistochemistry and factor VIII antibodies. We also investigated the influence of suture techniques (circular anastomoses, n = 19; longitudinal sutures, n = 15) on vascular perfusion.
resultsOnly human samples showed branching of mesenteric vessels. Compared to the pig, human vessels showed closer connections at the entrance to the bowel wall (p = 0.045) and higher numbers of intramural anastomoses (p < 0.001). Porcine main vessels formed in multifilament-like vessel bundles and displayed few intramural vessel anastomoses. Circular anastomoses induced a circular perfusion defect at the bowel wall; longitudinal anastomoses induced significantly smaller perfusion defects (p < 0.001). Both species showed higher vascular density in the jejunum than in the ileum (p < 0.001). Human samples showed similar vascular density within the jejunum (p = 0.583) and higher density in the ileum (p < 0.001) compared to pig samples.
conclusionThe results showed significant differences between human and porcine intestines. The porcine model remains the standard for studies on anastomotic healing because it is currently the only viable model for studying anastomosis and wound healing. Nevertheless, scientific interpretations must consider the anatomic differences between humans and porcine intestines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25694139What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.