Colon interposition for esophageal replacement: isoperistaltic or antiperistaltic? Experimental results

Background. Isoperistaltic colon is preferred to antiperistaltic colon for esophageal replacement, but experimental data do not exist to support this practice. Methods. In 7 dogs a 20 cm long colon loop was interposed between the skin and the small bowel, isoperistaltically in 3 dogs and antiperistaltically in 4 dogs. Three months later five strain-gauges were implanted and evacuation was investigated by motility testing, barium studies, and scintigraphy. Results. Motility recording showed normal colon motility in the excluded loops. Quiescent states (duration 40.2 ± 13.6 minutes) were followed by contractile states (duration 7.5 ± 2.4 minutes, frequency 3.3 ± 0.6 per minute). The main peristaltic direction of isoperistaltic loops was isoperistaltic, and the main peristaltic direction of antiperistaltic loops was antiperistaltic. Evacuation took place exclusively during the contractile status. Half time emptying was more rapid in isoperistaltic loops (35 ± 11 vs 69 ± 16 minutes). The content of antiperistaltic loops was held back by antiperistaltic activity. Application of oatmeal porridge into the loops shortened the quiescent status from 40.2 to 13.2 ± 4.8 minutes. Conclusions. The colon graft for esophageal replacement is an active system. Food is stored during the quiescent states and evacuated during the contractile states. The original peristaltic direction is preserved so that retroperistalsis in antiperistaltic loops may lead to patient discomfort and pulmonary complications.