Intestinal anastomotic healing at varying times after irradiation.

The use of preoperative and intraoperative irradiation as surgical adjuncts in cancer management has led to concerns regarding post-operative wound healing. The optimum time to construct an intestinal anastomosis after irradiation has not been determined. The aim of this study was to evaluate anastomotic wound healing at varying times after irradiation. One hundred eighty-seven male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into seven experimental groups. Group I (control) had a sutured anastomosis and no irradiation. Groups II-VII received a single dose of 20 Gy intraoperatively. In group II, a sutured anastomosis incorporating irradiated bowel was performed immediately after irradiation. Groups III-VII underwent a second laparotomy to undergo a sutured anastomosis with irradiated bowel at 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, and 4 weeks after irradiation. The rats were sacrificed 7 days after the anastomosis was created and the segment of terminal ileum containing the anastomosis was harvested. Tensile strength, hydroxyproline content, and modified Black irradiation damage scores were determined: [table: see text] The increasing modified Black scores reflect the progressive nature of irradiation damage over time. Increasing hydroxyproline content is seen after irradiation but this does not imply increasing wound strength. There was a return of tensile strength to normal levels by 2 weeks. These findings suggest that normal wound healing can be expected if a minimum of 2 weeks elapses between irradiation and intestinal anastomosis.

Four-contrast defecography: pelvic "floor-oscopy".

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine the accuracy of physical examination (as judged by four-contrast defecography) for women with pelvic floor relaxation disorders. METHODS: Sixty-two women (mean age, 59 years) who had obstructed defecation or constipation, vaginal prolapse, urinary difficulty, or pelvic pain underwent four-contrast defecography. Oral, vaginal, bladder, and rectal contrast were administered selectively and fluoroscopy was performed. Radiographic findings were compared with physical examination diagnosis. RESULTS: Four-contrast defecography changed the diagnosis in 46 patients (75 percent); 26 percent of presumed cystoceles, 36 percent of enteroceles, and 25 percent of rectoceles were not present on defecography. Defecography also revealed unsuspected coexisting defects in addition to known abnormalities detected on physical examination. In contrast, when physical examination was negative for these defects, 63 percent of patients were found to have cystoceles, 46 percent to have enteroceles, and 73 percent to have rectoceles on four-contrast defecography. The discovery of Grade 2 or 3 unsuspected abnormalities was significant, especially so for enteroceles. For posterior vaginal eversions extending to or past the introitus, physical examination was accurate in only 61 percent. Physical examination of large anterior defects was more accurate, with 74 percent of patients being correctly diagnosed. CONCLUSIONS: Physical examination diagnosis of pelvic floor relaxation disorders is frequently inaccurate, especially for large vaginal eversions. Four-contrast defecography improves diagnostic accuracy, helps to identify all pelvic floor defects before surgery, and can assist with planning the correct operative approach.