Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

A Systematic Review of Assessment Methods and Impact of Mechanical Tension on Bowel Anastomoses

Muhammad Usman Khalid, Jie Ying Wu, Aimal Khan
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.12.24308856
Muhammad Usman Khalid
1University of Kentucky
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jie Ying Wu
2Vanderbilt University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aimal Khan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: aimal.khan{at}vumc.org
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background While tension on anastomoses is largely regarded as a key factor in anastomotic leaks and failure, the assessment of this tension is based on subjective surgeon estimation. There is currently no clinically available tool to objectively assess mechanical tension on an anastomosis. Some animal and human studies have previously assessed anastomotic tension, but no comprehensive review exists that discusses the different methods and types of tension measured.

Objectives To summarize the current state of literature regarding measurement and impact of tension on bowel anastomoses.

Findings Anastomotic leak and tension have been found to be strongly associated, with the presence of tension making leak up to 10 times more likely. While freedom from tension has traditionally been measured via the surrogate measure of adequate bowel mobilization, this remains a subjective and imprecise method. Literature describes several techniques to allow adequate mobilization such as splenic flexure mobilization or division of the omentum, but basing the estimate of tension on subjective assessment has some inherent drawbacks. Animal and cadaveric studies have been the frontier for objective measurement of wall tension, with the use of scaffolds, suture types, and prostheses to bolster the natural tolerance of the bowel. However, these tend to use tensiometers to measure tension, along with automated machines or pulley and ratcheting systems to increase tension in specified intervals. These are universally destructive due to their design of measuring maximal tensile load.

Conclusions Objective measurement of bowel tension in live human subjects has not been studied in the current literature. Bowel mobilization is a common method to reduce tension, but it relies on subjective judgment and varies between surgeons. Given the recognized importance of tension, developing an objective, safe, intra-operative method to measure bowel wall tension would be a valuable surgical tool.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data referenced are available online in the MEDLINE Pubmed database.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 13, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Systematic Review of Assessment Methods and Impact of Mechanical Tension on Bowel Anastomoses
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
A Systematic Review of Assessment Methods and Impact of Mechanical Tension on Bowel Anastomoses
Muhammad Usman Khalid, Jie Ying Wu, Aimal Khan
medRxiv 2024.06.12.24308856; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.12.24308856
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A Systematic Review of Assessment Methods and Impact of Mechanical Tension on Bowel Anastomoses
Muhammad Usman Khalid, Jie Ying Wu, Aimal Khan
medRxiv 2024.06.12.24308856; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.12.24308856

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Surgery
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)