You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 122 No. 3, March 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  PAPERS READ BEFORE THE 10TH ANNUAL SURGICAL SYMPOSIUM OF THE ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION SURGEONS, WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 8-10, 1986
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (21)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Growth of Neomucosa After Intestinal Resection

Jon S. Thompson, MD

Arch Surg. 1987;122(3):316-319.


Abstract

• The growth of neomucosa over patched intestinal defects may prove useful in the short-bowel syndrome. This study was done to determine if the timing of intestinal patching with respect to intestinal resection affects neomucosal growth. Twelve dogs underwent 75% intestinal resection, with intestinal patching done either simultaneously or 12 weeks later. Energy intake, final body weight, albumin level, and length of remnant patched were similar in both groups. Forty weeks after patching, neomucosal coverage of the defect (95.2%±2.0% vs 94.2%±1.6%), neomucosal surface area (36.2±4.5 vs 31.8±2.9 cm2), and patch size (56.2%±6.8% vs 51.9%±9.7%) were similar in both the simultaneous and delayed groups, as were villus height of neomucosa and disaccharidase activity. Neomucosal growth is similar whether intestinal patching is performed simultaneously or 12 weeks after resection. Intestinal patching is not indicated at the initial intestinal resection.

(Arch Surg 1987;122:316-319)



Author Affiliations

From the Omaha Veterans Administration Hospital and the Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.


Footnotes

Accepted for publication Sept 19, 1986.

Read before the Tenth Annual Surgical Symposium of the Association of Veterans Administration Surgeons, Washington, DC, May 8, 1986.

Reprint requests to Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 42nd and Dewey Avenue, Omaha, NE 68105 (Dr Thompson).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Luminal Short-Chain Fatty Acids and Postresection Intestinal Adaptation
Thompson et al.
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1996;20:338-343.
ABSTRACT  

Somatostatin Analogue Inhibits Intestinal Regeneration
Thompson et al.
Arch Surg 1993;128:385-389.
ABSTRACT  

The Effect of Intestinal Resection and Urogastrone on Intestinal Regeneration
Thompson et al.
Arch Surg 1990;125:1617-1621.
ABSTRACT  

Effect of Eflorithine on Intestinal Regeneration
Thompson et al.
Arch Surg 1989;124:454-457.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1987 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.