Editorial Open Access
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Surg. May 27, 2024; 16(5): 1231-1234
Published online May 27, 2024. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i5.1231
Clinical diagnostic advances in intestinal anastomotic techniques: Hand suturing, stapling, and compression devices
Ah Young Lee, Joo Young Cho, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cha Gangnam Medical Center, Cha University College of Medicine, Seoul 06135, South Korea
ORCID number: Ah Young Lee (0000-0003-3865-3923); Joo Young Cho (0000-0002-7182-5806).
Author contributions: Lee AY conceptualization, writing-original draft, formal analysis, investigation, and editing; Cho JY conceptualization, supervision, writing-review, and editing and final approval of the article.
Conflict-of-interest statement: Ah Young Lee, and Joo Young Cho have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Joo Young Cho, PhD, Academic Editor, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cha Gangnam Medical Center, Cha University College of Medicine, 566 Nonhyeon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06135, South Korea. cjy6695@naver.com
Received: December 29, 2023
Revised: February 5, 2024
Accepted: April 28, 2024
Published online: May 27, 2024
Processing time: 145 Days and 11.3 Hours

Abstract

The development of intestinal anastomosis techniques, including hand suturing, stapling, and compression anastomoses, has been a significant advancement in surgical practice. These methods aim to prevent leakage and minimize tissue fibrosis, which can lead to stricture formation. The healing process involves various phases: hemostasis and inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. Mechanical staplers and sutures can cause inflammation and fibrosis due to the release of profibrotic chemokines. Compression anastomosis devices, including those made of nickel-titanium alloy, offer a minimally invasive option for various surgical challenges and have shown safety and efficacy. However, despite advancements, anastomotic techniques are evaluated based on leakage risk, with complications being a primary concern. Newer devices like Magnamosis use magnetic rings for compression anastomosis, demonstrating greater strength and patency compared to stapling. Magnetic technology is also being explored for other medical treatments. While there are promising results, particularly in animal models, the real-world application in humans is limited, and further research is needed to assess their safety and practicality.

Key Words: Anastomoses; Diagnostic advances, Anastomotic techniques; Technique; Intestine

Core Tip: The development of techniques for the creation of intestinal anastomoses, such as hand suturing, stapling, and compression anastomoses, represents a significant advancement in surgical practice. Compression anastomosis devices reduce inflammation compared to sutured anastomosis, and they yield leakage and stenosis rates similar to those of standard sutured and stapled colorectal anastomoses. Recent reports suggest that these devices facilitate the safe and efficient creation of intestinal anastomoses. For instance, compression anastomoses have exhibited a greater bursting strength and wider patency than stapled anastomoses, even after chemoradiotherapy. Nevertheless, the potential of compression anastomosis, including its safety and practicality, warrants further investigation.



INTRODUCTION

The development of techniques for the creation of intestinal anastomoses, such as hand suturing, stapling, and compression anastomoses, represents a substantial advancement in surgical practice. An ideal anastomotic connection must have sufficient strength to prevent leakage during peak tissue weakness and minimize tissue fibrosis, which could lead to stricture formation. A key prerequisite for optimal anastomosis is stress-free alignment of the wound edges, ensuring an adequate blood supply[1].

In principle, anastomosis has several stages: Hemostasis and inflammation (days 0-3), proliferation (days 4-14), and remodeling and scar maturation (from day 15 onward). Colorectal anastomoses are typically created using mechanical staplers or one or more suture layers[2]. This process can trigger an inflammatory response characterized by a foreign body granulomatous reaction at the anastomosis site, potentially leading to stricture formation due to the ongoing release of profibrotic chemokines, e.g., transforming growth factor-β and platelet-derived growth factor[3]. This issue has spurred numerous attempts to create “sutureless” bowel–bowel anastomoses[4].

The intestinal anastomotic healing process can be divided into the acute inflammatory, proliferative, and remodeling or maturation phases. As collagen is the most critical molecule in determining the strength of the intestinal wall, its metabolism is vital to our understanding of anastomotic healing[4].

Incorrectly performed anastomoses can lead to severe complications, such as peritonitis, sepsis, or death related to complications following gastrointestinal resection surgery[5]. Colorectal anastomotic leakage is a common postoperative complication, particularly after anterior resection of the rectum. The incidence of anastomotic leakage varies from 1% to 24%, with higher rates typically being observed in elective rectal anastomoses (12%-19%) than in colonic anastomoses (11%)[4]. Specifically, the leakage rates in ileocolic anastomoses are approximately 1%-4%, and those in colocolic anastomoses are 2%-3%. The risk of leakage is greater in complex surgeries than in simple surgeries, particularly in lower colorectal anastomoses, reaching 10%-14%[6].

A compression anastomosis device that can be used in a minimally invasive manner can address a wide range of surgical challenges, including malignant bowel obstruction, traumatic bowel injury, enterostomy closure, and congenital anomalies of the esophagus and intestines[7-9]. The concept of compression anastomosis, first introduced in 1826, has been explored and refined over time[10,11]. These devices, with recent developments based on nickel–titanium alloy rings that require no suture fixation, have been proven safe in elective and emergency settings[12]. As they leave no foreign bodies at the surgical site, they reduce inflammation compared with sutured anastomosis, and they yield similar leakage and stenosis rates to those of standard sutured and stapled colorectal anastomoses[13].

Despite advances in safety, anastomotic techniques are primarily evaluated on the basis of the risk of leakage. These techniques can be categorized according to their reproducibility, associated trauma, complexity, and usability. Flawless anastomotic healing is crucial for successful patient recovery. However, despite the use of various implants and methodologies, the risk of complications, such as anastomotic leakage (with rates of up to 10%) and stenosis, remains high. These complications are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality after visceral surgery.

Compression devices operate via a simultaneous process of pressure necrosis and repair at the anastomotic site. The entrapped bowel undergoes marked ischemia, tissue necrosis, and sloughing off of the inner, compressed tissue into the fecal stream while the outer bowel tissues heal. Recent reports have suggested that these devices facilitate the safe and efficient creation of intestinal anastomoses[14]. For instance, compression anastomoses have exhibited a greater bursting strength and wider patency than stapled anastomoses[15], even after chemoradiotherapy[16].

Magnamosis, comprising two self-assembling magnetic rings, represents a major advancement in endoscopically compatible systems for full-thickness compression anastomoses of the bowels. The device design includes convex-concave, radially symmetric halves that self-align magnetically and ring-shaped magnetic halves for immediate patency. The mating surfaces have a specially engineered radial topography to promote gradual remodeling and healing of compressed intestinal walls[17].

The use of enteric magnets for anastomosis was first described in animal models and then later in humans. Magnetic technology is increasingly used in the medical field for various treatments, including vascular anastomoses[18,19] and the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases.

In human trials, the use of flat magnetic rings for mucosa-to-mucosa anastomosis has been explored, with patency occurring after 7-12 d[20]. However, two cases of anastomotic leaks were reported during the follow-up of 21 patients[21]. Magnacystostomy has also been proposed as a minimally invasive technique for suprapubic cystostomy, particularly when typical methods are contraindicated. Magnetic treatment for short urethral strictures is effective in children[22].

In animal models, magnamoses (gastrojejunostomy and jejunojejunostomy) develop strengths comparable to or greater than those of hand-sewn or stapled anastomoses. The advantages of these devices include ease of insertion, coupling, and removal as well as their less invasive nature compared with other devices. However, the time required for anastomotic completion can vary among organs, and this technique may not be suitable for patients who require immediate decompression[23].

Although the system has been used to create side-to-side colorectal anastomoses, failures due to magnetic-ring detachment have been reported. Additionally, mild-to-moderate stenoses were observed in some cases, although these decreased in severity over time[24].

CONCLUSION

Despite their theoretical benefits, the utility of these compression devices in clinical settings remains limited. Real-time monitoring of the healing process is often not feasible, leading to a reliance on traditional or slightly more advanced methods. However, magnetic anastomosis is not just confined to clinical trials; it is already being employed in clinical practice, notably in cases of long gap esophageal atresia and cholangiojejunostomy[25]. We also expect its scope of use to expand to the treatment of fistulas in the pancreatobiliary area. Nevertheless, the potential of compression anastomosis in certain scenarios warrants further investigation regarding its safety and practicality.

Footnotes

Provenance and peer review: Invited article; Externally peer reviewed.

Peer-review model: Single blind

Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology

Country/Territory of origin: South Korea

Peer-review report’s classification

Scientific Quality: Grade C, Grade C, Grade D

Novelty: Grade B, Grade B, Grade C

Creativity or Innovation: Grade B, Grade C, Grade C

Scientific Significance: Grade B, Grade B, Grade D

P-Reviewer: Petrucciani N, Italy; Shiekh IG, United Kingdom S-Editor: Qu XL L-Editor: A P-Editor: Guo X

References
1.  Laukötter MG, Senninger N. [Anastomotic techniques for the gastrointestinal tract]. Chirurg. 2013;84:1085-1096, quiz 1097.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4]  [Article Influence: 0.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
2.  Patel K, Thomas W. Sutures, ligatures and staples. Surgery (Oxford). 2008;26:48-53.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 2]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2]  [Article Influence: 0.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
3.  Thompson SK, Chang EY, Jobe BA. Clinical review: Healing in gastrointestinal anastomoses, part I. Microsurgery. 2006;26:131-136.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 132]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 158]  [Article Influence: 8.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
4.  Ho YH, Ashour MA. Techniques for colorectal anastomosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:1610-1621.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 77]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 79]  [Article Influence: 5.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
5.  Mortensen NJ, Ashraf S.   Gastrointestinal tract and abdomen (section 5). Intestinal anastomosis (chapter 29) 2008; 5.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
6.  Ellis CT, Maykel JA. Defining Anastomotic Leak and the Clinical Relevance of Leaks. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2021;34:359-365.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
7.  Hardy KJ. Non-suture anastomosis: the historical development. Aust N Z J Surg. 1990;60:625-633.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 34]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 34]  [Article Influence: 1.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
8.  Aggarwal R, Darzi A. Compression anastomoses revisited. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:965-971.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 41]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 44]  [Article Influence: 2.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  Kopelman D, Hatoum OA, Kimmel B, Monassevitch L, Nir Y, Lelcuk S, Rabau M, Szold A. Compression gastrointestinal anastomosis. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007;4:821-828.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 22]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 23]  [Article Influence: 2.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
10.  Forde KA, McLarty AJ, Tsai J, Ghalili K, Delany HM. Murphy's Button revisited. Clinical experience with the biofragmentable anastomotic ring. Ann Surg. 1993;217:78-81.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 25]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 25]  [Article Influence: 0.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
11.  Cossu ML, Coppola M, Fais E, Ruggiu M, Spartà C, Profili S, Bifulco V, Meloni GB, Noya G. The use of the Valtrac ring in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract, for single, double, and triple anastomoses: a report of 50 cases. Am Surg. 2000;66:759-762.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
12.  Galizia G, Lieto E, Castellano P, Pelosio L, Imperatore V, Canfora F, Pignatelli C. Comparison between the biofragmentable anastomosis ring and stapled anastomoses in the extraperitoneal rectum: a prospective, randomized study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1999;14:286-290.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 20]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21]  [Article Influence: 0.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
13.  Lee JY, Woo JH, Choi HJ, Park KJ, Roh YH, Kim KH, Lee HY. Early experience of the compression anastomosis ring (CAR™ 27) in left-sided colon resection. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:4787-4792.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 9]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7]  [Article Influence: 0.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
14.  Chun J, Lee D, Stewart D, Talcott M, Fleshman J. Comparison of the compression anastomosis ring (EndoCAR) with a circular stapled anastomosis in a porcine model. Surg Innov. 2011;18:235-240.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 8]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8]  [Article Influence: 0.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
15.  Kopelman Y, Siersema PD, Nir Y, Szold A, Bapaye A, Segol O, Willenz EP, Lelcuk S, Geller A, Kopelman D. Endoluminal compression clip: full-thickness resection of the mesenteric bowel wall in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1146-1157.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 9]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11]  [Article Influence: 0.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
16.  Jamshidi R, Stephenson JT, Clay JG, Pichakron KO, Harrison MR. Magnamosis: magnetic compression anastomosis with comparison to suture and staple techniques. J Pediatr Surg. 2009;44:222-228.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 69]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 75]  [Article Influence: 5.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
17.  Erdmann D, Sweis R, Heitmann C, Yasui K, Olbrich KC, Levin LS, Sharkawy AA, Klitzman B. Side-to-side sutureless vascular anastomosis with magnets. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40:505-511.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 40]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 35]  [Article Influence: 1.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
18.  Cope C, Clark TW, Ginsberg G, Habecker P. Stent placement of gastroenteric anastomoses formed by magnetic compression. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1999;10:1379-1386.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 29]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 32]  [Article Influence: 1.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
19.  Tilson MD, Livstone EM. Early proliferative activity: its occurrence in the crypts of small bowel and colon after partial small-bowel resection. Arch Surg. 1980;115:1481-1485.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 6]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9]  [Article Influence: 0.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
20.  Jansen A, Brummelkamp WH, Davies GA, Klopper PJ, Keeman JN. Clinical applications of magnetic rings in colorectal anastomosis. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1981;153:537-545.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
21.  Stepanov EA, Erokhin AP, Nikolaev VV, Vasil'ev GS, Mukho SB. [Treatment of short urethral strictures in children using magnets]. Urol Nefrol (Mosk). 1989;8-11.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
22.  Pichakron KO, Jelin EB, Hirose S, Curran PF, Jamshidi R, Stephenson JT, Fechter R, Strange M, Harrison MR. Magnamosis II: Magnetic compression anastomosis for minimally invasive gastrojejunostomy and jejunojejunostomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:42-49.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 49]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 53]  [Article Influence: 4.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
23.  Wall J, Diana M, Leroy J, Deruijter V, Gonzales KD, Lindner V, Harrison M, Marescaux J. MAGNAMOSIS IV: magnetic compression anastomosis for minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Endoscopy. 2013;45:643-648.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 42]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 46]  [Article Influence: 4.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
24.  Li Y, Liu XM, Zhang HK, Zhang XF, Tang B, Bai JG, Lv Y. Cholangiojejunostomy Using a Novel Magnamosis Device: Initial Clinical Results. World J Surg. 2021;45:3138-3145.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
25.  Conforti A, Pellegrino C, Valfré L, Iacusso C, Schingo PMS, Capolupo I, Sgro' S, Rasmussen L, Bagolan P. Magnamosis for long gap esophageal atresia: Minimally invasive "fatal attraction". J Pediatr Surg. 2023;58:405-411.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]