Experimental models of high-risk bowel anastomosis in rats: A systematic review
Ntampakis G., Pramateftakis MG., Anestiadou E., Bitsianis S., Ioannidis O., Bekiari C.
Systematic Review, published in World J Exp Med (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- World J Exp Med (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 38948424
- PMCID
- PMC11212746
- DOI
- 10.5493/wjem.v14.i2.94135
- Citations
- 2
Abstract (original English)
Background Anastomotic leaks remain one of the most dreaded complications in gastrointestinal surgery causing significant morbidity, that negatively affect the patients' quality of life. Experimental studies play an important role in understanding the pathophysiological background of anastomotic healing and there are still many fields that require further investigation. Knowledge drawn from these studies can lead to interventions or techniques that can reduce the risk of anastomotic leak in patients with high-risk features. Despite the advances in experimental protocols and techniques, designing a high-quality study is still challenging for the investigators as there is a plethora of different models used. Aim To review current state of the art for experimental protocols in high-risk anastomosis in rats. Methods This systematic review was performed according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. To identify eligible studies, a comprehensive literature search was performed in the electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE) and Scopus, covering the period from conception until 18 October 2023. Results From our search strategy 102 studies were included and were categorized based on the mechanism used to create a high-risk anastomosis. Methods of assessing anastomotic healing were extracted and were individually appraised. Conclusion Anasto
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.