The Effects of Serotonin Receptor Antagonists on Contraction and Relaxation Responses Induced by Electrical Stimulation in the Rat Small Intestine

Background: The main source of 5-HT in body is in enterchromafin cells of intestine, different studies mentioned different roles for endogenous 5-HT and receptors involved and it is not clearified the mechanism of action of endogenous 5-HT. Objectives: To study the role of endogenous 5-HT on modulation of contraction and relaxation responses induced by electrical field stimulation (EFS) in different regions of the rat intestine. Materials and Methods: Segments taken from the rat duodenum, jejunum, mid and terminal ileum were vertically mounted, connected to a transducer and exposed to EFS with different frequencies in the absence and presence of various inhibitors of enteric mediators i. e. specific 5-HT receptor antagonists. Results: EFS-induced responses were sensitive to TTX and partly to atropine, indicating a major neuronal involvement and a cholinergic system. Pre-treatment with WAY100635 (a 5-HT1A receptor antagonist) and granisetron up to 10.0 µM, GR113808 (a 5-HT4 receptor antagonist), methysergide and ritanserin up to 1.0 µM, failed to modify responses to EFS inall examined tissues. In the presence of SB258585 1.0 µM (a 5-HT6 receptor antagonist) there was a trend to enhance contraction in the proximal part of the intestine and reduce contraction in the distal part. Pre-treatment with SB269970A 1.0 µM (5-HT7 receptor antagonist) induced a greater contractile response to EFS at 0.4 Hz only in the duodenum. Conclusions: The application of 5-HT1A, 5-HT2, 5-HT3, 5-HT4, 5-HT6 and 5-HT7 receptor antagonists, applied at concentrations lower than 1.0 µM did not modify the EFS-induced contraction and relaxation responses, whichsuggests the unlikely involvement of endogenous 5-HT in mediating responses to EFS in the described test conditions. Keywords: Electric Stimulation Therapy; Serotonin 5-HT1 Receptor Antagonists; Intestine, Smal

Prophylactic biological mesh reinforcement versus standard closure of stoma site (ROCSS): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background: Closure of an abdominal stoma, a common elective operation, is associated with frequent complications; one of the commonest and impactful is incisional hernia formation. We aimed to investigate whether biological mesh (collagen tissue matrix) can safely reduce the incidence of incisional hernias at the stoma closure site. Methods: In this randomised controlled trial (ROCSS) done in 37 hospitals across three European countries (35 UK, one Denmark, one Netherlands), patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective ileostomy or colostomy closure were randomly assigned using a computer-based algorithm in a 1:1 ratio to either biological mesh reinforcement or closure with sutures alone (control). Training in the novel technique was standardised across hospitals. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of clinically detectable hernia 2 years after randomisation (intention to treat). A sample size of 790 patients was required to identify a 40% reduction (25% to 15%), with 90% power (15% drop-out rate). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02238964. Findings: Between Nov 28, 2012, and Nov 11, 2015, of 1286 screened patients, 790 were randomly assigned. 394 (50%) patients were randomly assigned to mesh closure and 396 (50%) to standard closure. In the mesh group, 373 (95%) of 394 patients successfully received mesh and in the control group, three patients received mesh. The clinically detectable hernia rate, the primary outcome, at 2 years was 12% (39 of 323) in the mesh group and 20% (64 of 327) in the control group (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·43–0·90; p=0·012). In 455 patients for whom 1 year postoperative CT scans were available, there was a lower radiologically defined hernia rate in mesh versus control groups (20 [9%] of 229 vs 47 [21%] of 226, adjusted RR 0·42, 95% CI 0·26–0·69; p<0·001). There was also a reduction in symptomatic hernia (16%, 52 of 329 vs 19%, 64 of 331; adjusted relative risk 0·83, 0·60–1·16; p=0·29) and surgical reintervention (12%, 42 of 344 vs 16%, 54 of 346: adjusted relative risk 0·78, 0·54–1·13; p=0·19) at 2 years, but this result did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences were seen in wound infection rate, seroma rate, quality of life, pain scores, or serious adverse events. Interpretation: Reinforcement of the abdominal wall with a biological mesh at the time of stoma closure reduced clinically detectable incisional hernia within 24 months of surgery and with an acceptable safety profile. The results of this study support the use of biological mesh in stoma closure site reinforcement to reduce the early formation of incisional hernias. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Research for Patient Benefit and Allergan