scholarly journals Computer-Assisted ex vivo, Normothermic Small Bowel Perfusion

2000 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-106
Author(s):  
M.J. Stangl ◽  
J. Krapp ◽  
D. Theodorou ◽  
M. Eder ◽  
C. Hammer ◽  
...  
1999 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 445 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Braun ◽  
M Shipkova ◽  
U Christians ◽  
S Laabs ◽  
K Elias ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
A. Kinaci ◽  
S. van Thoor ◽  
S. Redegeld ◽  
M. Tooren ◽  
T. P. C. van Doormaal

AbstractCerebrospinal fluid leakage is a frequent complication after cranial and spinal surgery. To prevent this complication and seal the dura watertight, we developed Liqoseal, a dural sealant patch comprising a watertight polyesterurethane layer and an adhesive layer consisting of poly(DL-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) copolymer and multiarmed N-hydroxylsuccinimide functionalized polyethylene glycol. We compared acute burst pressure and resistance to physiological conditions for 72 h of Liqoseal, Adherus, Duraseal, Tachosil, and Tisseel using computer-assisted models and fresh porcine dura. The mean acute burst pressure of Liqoseal in the cranial model (145 ± 39 mmHg) was higher than that of Adherus (87 ± 47 mmHg), Duraseal (51 ± 42 mmHg) and Tachosil (71 ± 16 mmHg). Under physiological conditions, cranial model resistance test results showed that 2 of 3 Liqoseal sealants maintained dural attachment during 72 hours as opposed to 3 of 3 for Adherus and Duraseal and 0 of 3 for Tachosil. The mean burst pressure of Liqoseal in the spinal model (233 ± 81 mmHg) was higher than that of Tachosil (123 ± 63 mmHg) and Tisseel (23 ± 16 mmHg). Under physiological conditions, spinal model resistance test results showed that 2 of 3 Liqoseal sealants maintained dural attachment for 72 hours as opposed to 3 of 3 for Adherus and 0 of 3 for Duraseal and Tachosil. This novel study showed that Liqoseal is capable of achieving a strong watertight seal over a dural defect in ex vivo models.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000084
Author(s):  
Amanda Farah Khan ◽  
Matthew Kenneth MacDonald ◽  
Catherine Streutker ◽  
Corwyn Rowsell ◽  
James Drake ◽  
...  

ObjectivesWe aim to determine what threshold of compressive stress small bowel and colon tissues display evidence of significant tissue trauma during laparoscopic surgery.DesignThis study included 10 small bowel and 10 colon samples from patients undergoing routine gastrointestinal surgery. Each sample was compressed with pressures ranging from 100 kPa to 600 kPa. Two pathologists who were blinded to all study conditions, performed a histological analysis of the tissues. Experimentation: November 2018–February 2019. Analysis: March 2019–May 2020.SettingAn inner-city trauma and ambulatory hospital with a 40-bed inpatient general surgery unit with a diverse patient population.ParticipantsPatients were eligible if their surgery procured healthy tissue margins for experimentation (a convenience sample). 26 patient samples were procured; 6 samples were unusable. 10 colon and 10 small bowel samples were tested for a total of 120 experimental cases. No patients withdrew their consent.InterventionsA novel device was created to induce compressive “grasps” to simulate those of a laparoscopic grasper. Experimentation was performed ex-vivo, in-vitro. Grasp conditions of 0–600 kPa for a duration of 10 s were used.ResultsSmall bowel (10), M:F was 7:3, average age was 54.3 years. Colon (10), M:F was 1:1, average age was 65.2 years. All 20 patients experienced a significant difference (p<0.05) in serosal thickness post-compression at both 500 and 600 kPa for both tissue types. A logistic regression analysis with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 84.6% on a test set of data predicts a safety threshold of 329–330 kPa.ConclusionsA threshold was discovered that corresponded to both significant serosal thickness change and a positive histological trauma score rating. This “force limit” could be used in novel sensorized laparoscopic tools to avoid intraoperative tissue injury.


Surgery ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 131 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas T. Schwarz ◽  
Atsunori Nakao ◽  
Michael A. Nalesnik ◽  
Jörg C. Kalff ◽  
Noriko Murase ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 895-902 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Anssari Moin ◽  
Wiebe Derksen ◽  
J.P. Verweij ◽  
Richard van Merkesteyn ◽  
Daniel Wismeijer

2008 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. L. INGHAM CLARK ◽  
G. J. SMITH ◽  
P. W. CRANE ◽  
B. A. PRICE ◽  
P. A. LEAR ◽  
...  

Radiology ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 236 (3) ◽  
pp. 867-871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Jun Kim ◽  
Joon Koo Han ◽  
Se Hyung Kim ◽  
Jun Yong Jeong ◽  
Su Kyung An ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (9) ◽  
pp. 3485-3496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shobhit Arya ◽  
Nancy Hadjievangelou ◽  
Su Lei ◽  
Hiromi Kudo ◽  
Robert D. Goldin ◽  
...  

Stem Cells ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 1373-1385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramón Suárez-Rodríguez ◽  
Jaime Belkind-Gerson
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document