Skip to main content
Log in

Laparoscopic surgery in the rat

Beneficial effect on body weight and tumor take

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: The ability of laparoscopic techniques to treat malignant disease is controversial. We developed a rat model to assess metabolic and oncological effects of laparoscopic surgery.

Methods: Experiment I. The postoperative body weight in 10 rats having laparoscopic bowel resection (group I), 10 rats having open bowel resection (group II) and 5 rats having anesthesia only (group III) was determined. Experiment II. Tumor take was scored in 11 rats having laparoscopic bowel resection (group IV), 11 rats having open bowel resection (group V), 6 rats having CO2 pneumoperitoneum without bowel resection (group VI) and 6 rats having anesthesia only (group VII). All rats had CC531 cancer cells injected intraperitoneally postoperatively.

Results: Experiment I. Body weight loss in group I compared to group II (p<0.036). Rats of group III lost no weight postoperatively. Experiment II. Tumor take was less in the subcutis (p=0.005), parietal peritoenum (p<0.001) and bowel anastomosis (p=0.021) in group IV compared to group V. Tumor take was significantly greater at all sites except for subcutis in group VI compared to VII (all p<0.022).

Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is associated with less postoperative weight loss and less tumor take compared to open surgery. CO2 insufflation appears to increase tumor take.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allendorf JDF, Bessler M, Kayton ML, Whelan RL, Treat MR, Nowygrod R (1995) Tumor growth after laparotomy or laparoscopy; a preliminary study. Surg Endosc 9: 49–52

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beart RW (1994) Laparoscopic colectomy: status of the art. Dis Colon Rectum 37(Suppl): S47-S49

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berguer R, Gutt C, Stiegmann GV (1993) Laparoscopic surgery in the rat. Surg Endosc 7: 345–347

    Google Scholar 

  4. Böhm B, Milsom JW (1994) Animal models as educational tools in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 8: 707–713

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bouvy ND, Marquet RL, Jeekel J, Bonjer HJ (1995) Gasless versus CO2 pneumoperitoneum in relation to the development of abdominal wall metastases. Eur Surg Res 27(S1): 4

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cirocco WC, Schwartzman A, Golub RW (1994) Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. Surgery 116: 842–846

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eggermont AMM, Steller EP, Sugarbaker PH (1987) Laparotomy enhances intraperitoneal tumor-growth and abrogates the antitumor effects of interleukin-2 and lymphokine-activated killer cells. Surgery 102: 71–78

    Google Scholar 

  8. Glaser F, Sannwald GA, Buhr HJ, Kuntz C, Mayer H, Klee F, Herfarth C (1995) General stress response to conventional and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 221(4): 372–380

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gurtner GC, Robertson CS, Chung SCS, Ling TKW, Li AKC (1995) Effect of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on bacteraemia and endotoxaemia in an animal model of peritonitis. Br J Surg 82: 844–848

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hubens G, Willems G (1990) Factors influencing the implantation of colon cancer cells on the colonic suture line in rats. Eur Surg Res 22: 356–364

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hughes ESR, McDermott FT, Polglase AL, Johnson WR (1983) Tumor recurrence in the abdominal wall scar tissue after large-bowel cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 26: 571–572

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1: 144–150

    Google Scholar 

  13. Prehn RT, Main JW (1957) Immunity to methylcholanthrene induced sarcomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 18: 769–778

    Google Scholar 

  14. Roumen RMH, van Meurs PA, Kuypers HHC, Kraak WAG, Sauerwein RW (1992) Serum interleukin-6 and C reactive protein responses in patients after laparoscopic or conventional cholecystectomy. Eur J Surg 158: 541–544

    Google Scholar 

  15. Steiner CA, Bass EB, Talamini MA, Pitt HA, Steinberg EP (1994) Surgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland. N Engl J Med 330: 403–408

    Google Scholar 

  16. Trokel MJ, Bessler M, Treat MR, Whelan RL, Nowygrod R (1994) Preservation of immune response after laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 8: 1385–1388

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tsukada K, Katoh H, Shiojima M, Suzuki T, Takenoshita S, Nagamachi Y (1993) Concentrations of cytokines in peritoneal fluid after abdominal surgery. Eur J Surg 159: 475–479

    Google Scholar 

  18. Watson RWG, Redmond HP, McCarthy J, Burke PE, Bouchier-Hayes D (1995) Exposure of the peritoneal cavity to air regulates early inflammatory responses to surgery in a murine model. Br J Surg 82: 1060–1065

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weese JL, Ottery FD, Emoto SE (1986) Do operations facilitate tumor growth? An experimental model in rats. Surgery 100: 273–277

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wexner SD, Cohen SM, Johansen OB, Nogueras JJ, Jagelman DG (1993) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective assessment and current perspective. Br J Surg 80: 1602–1605

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wexner SD, Cohen SM (1995) Port site metastases after laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cure of malignancy. Br J Surg 82: 295–298

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wu L, Mustoe TA (1995) Effect of ischaemia on growth factor enhancement of incisional wound healing. Surgery 117: 570–576

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bouvy, N.D., Marquet, R.L., Hamming, J.F. et al. Laparoscopic surgery in the rat. Surg Endosc 10, 490–494 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00188392

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00188392

Key words

Navigation