Background: We have experimental data indicating that the pancreas is easily damaged by any intervention. The present study compared the effects of suture diameter, number of needle passes and suture tightness on rat pancreas. Methods: Under anesthesia, rat pancreas was sutured either with one loose stitch of 6-0 polydioxanone (PDS II) or 3-0 PDS II, with 5 passes of loose running 6-0 PDS II, or with 6-0 PDS II loop tightened to 0.6 or 1.2 N. Amylase activity and pancreatic tissue histology at the suturing site and farther away, were evaluated 1, 3, 7 and 21 days postoperatively. Results: Each suturing exposure and the sham-operation induced temporary amylase activity elevation on day 1 when compared with the baseline. In histology, 3-0 suture, 5 needle passes and 1.2-newton loop induced more damage than 6-0 suture, single needle pass and 0.6-newton loop, respectively. Similar but milder changes were observed in samples from the remote site. Conclusions: The pancreas reacts to suturing with widespread injury response resembling that of acute pancreatitis. In attempting to reduce suturing-induced widespread injury, as few and thin sutures and as loose suture tightness as possible should be used. Although these findings may seem obvious, they have not previously been proven in terms of histology.

Keywords:
Pancreas, Suture, Polydioxanone, Tissue injury, Pancreatic histology, Surgery, Injury response
1.
Raty S, Sand J, Nordback I: Detection of postoperative pancreatitis after pancreatic surgery by urine trypsinogen strip test. Br J Surg 2007;94:64–69.
2.
Raty S, Sand J, Lantto E, Nordback I: Postoperative acute pancreatitis as a major determinant of postoperative delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:1131–1139.
3.
Gress F, Michael H, Gelrud D, et al: EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreas: evaluation of pancreatitis as a complication. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:864–867.
4.
Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A: EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a learning curve with 300 consecutive procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:700–708.
5.
Lightwood R, Reber HA, Way LW: The risk and accuracy of pancreatic biopsy. Am J Surg 1976;132:189–194.
6.
Jamieson C, Bury KD, Colapinto ND: Evaluation of intraoperative biopsy of the pancreas. Can J Surg 1977;20:546–550.
7.
Lamsa T, Jin H, Mikkonen J, Laukkarinen J, Sand J, Nordback I: Biocompatibility of a new bioabsorbable radiopaque stent material (BaSO4 containing poly-L,D-lactide) in the rat pancreas. Pancreatology 2006;6:301–305.
8.
Nevalainen TJ, Aho HJ: Standards of morphological evaluation and histological grading in experimental acute pancreatitis. Eur Surg Res 1992;24(suppl 1):14–23.
9.
Niederau C, Liddle RA, Ferrell LD, Grendell JH: Beneficial effects of cholecystokinin-receptor blockade and inhibition of proteolytic enzyme activity in experimental acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis in mice. Evidence for cholecystokinin as a major factor in the development of acute pancreatitis. J Clin Invest 1986;78:1056–1063.
10.
Schmidt J, Rattner DW, Lewandrowski K, et al: A better model of acute pancreatitis for evaluating therapy. Ann Surg 1992;215:44–56.
11.
Lorentz K: Approved recommendation on IFCC methods for the measurement of catalytic concentration of enzymes. 9. IFCC method for alpha-amylase (1,4-alpha-D-glucan 4-glucanohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.1). International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). Committee on Enzymes. Clin Chem Lab Med 1998;36:185–203.
12.
Costa IP, Lazaro da Silva A, Gobbi H: Comparative study of the suture of pancreatic stump with absorbable and unabsorbable threads in rats. Arq Gastroenterol 1995;32:24–30.
13.
Sapy P, Miko I, Furka I: Comparison of suture materials in the pancreas. Acta Chir Acad Sci Hung 1982;23:209–216.
14.
Case RM: Is the rat pancreas an appropriate model of the human pancreas? Pancreatology 2006;6:180–190.
15.
Molea G, Schonauer F, Bifulco G, D’Angelo D: Comparative study on biocompatibility and absorption times of three absorbable monofilament suture materials (Polydioxanone, Poliglecaprone 25, Glycomer 631). Br J Plast Surg 2000;53:137–141.
16.
Bourne RB, Bitar H, Andreae PR, Martin LM, Finlay JB, Marquis F: In vivo comparison of four absorbable sutures: Vicryl, Dexon Plus, Maxon and PDS. Can J Surg 1988;31:43–45.
17.
Muftuoglu MA, Ozkan E, Saglam A: Effect of human pancreatic juice and bile on the tensile strength of suture materials. Am J Surg 2004;188:200–203.
18.
Lerwick E: Studies on the efficacy and safety of polydioxanone monofilament absorbable suture. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1983;156:51–55.
19.
Thomson SR, Gregory MA, Mars M, Natasen J, Naicker T, Baker LW: Morphological aspects of microarterial anastomoses: a comparison of nylon with polydioxanone. Br J Plast Surg 1995;48:165–171.
20.
Docobo-Durantez F, Sacristan-Perez C, Flor-Civera B, Lledo-Matoses S, Kreisler E, Biondo S: Randomized clinical study of polydioxanone and nylon sutures for laparotomy closure in high-risk patients. Cir Esp 2006;79:305–309.
21.
Stewart DW, Buffington PJ, Wacksman J: Suture material in bladder surgery: a comparison of polydioxanone, polyglactin, and chromic catgut. J Urol 1990;143:1261–1263.
22.
Nordback I: Value of monitoring amylase activities in patients with pancreatitis. Lancet 1985;i:1092.
23.
Bhatia M: Inflammatory response on the pancreatic acinar cell injury. Scand J Surg 2005;94:97–102.
24.
Bentrem DJ, Joehl RJ: Pancreas: healing response in critical illness. Crit Care Med 2003;31:S582–S589.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.