Objective To compare three methods for testing the colon bursting pressure in rats, especially for the anastomotic bursting pressure. Medthods Forty-five male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into the manual ball manometry group (H) , the machine manometry test pressure gauge tracings group ( MP group) , and the laboratory animal hollow organ anastomotic bursting pressure test (ME group). The rats were anesthetized and the colon was cut to test the bursting pressure. Colonic anastomosis was performed and the anastomotic segment was resected at one week after the operation. The colon anastomotic segment was tested for the bursting pressure by different testing methods , respectively. Results There were no significant differences in the results of pressure testing systems among the three groups. But standard deviation of the bursting pressure in the ME group was least. Conclusions Different manometry method can be applied to normal rat colon and colonic anastomotic bursting pressure test. The laboratory animal hollow organ anastomotic bursting pressure test system is more simple, intuitive, and providing more objective and accurate experimental results.%目的 比较不同测压方法测试大鼠结肠破裂压的优缺点.方法 45只雄性SD大鼠随机等分为手动皮球测压组(H组)、机器测压压力表头描记测试组(MP组)、"实验动物空腔脏器耐压力测试系统"测试组(ME组).各组大鼠经尾静脉注射麻醉后,切取结肠测试结肠破裂压;大鼠结肠端-端吻合一周后切取各组大鼠结肠吻合口,同法测试吻合口破裂压.结果 三种测压方法所测得正常结肠及结肠吻合口破裂压差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但ME组的标准差最小,MP组次之,H组的标准差最大.结论 不同测压方法均可应用于大鼠正常结肠和结肠吻合口破裂压测试,但"实验动物空腔脏器耐压力测试系统"使实验更简便、直观,实验结果更客观、精确.
展开▼
