Morphological features and microbiota of the small intestine
А. V. Kuznetsov,
О. V. Sorokin,
L. Yu. Kostina,
M. A. Karpov,
А. P. Nadeev,
V. V. Dolgov,
А. А. Glazkov https://doi.org/10.31549/2542-1174-2023-7-4-7-22
Abstract
I n t r o d u c t i o n . Despite its length and functional diversity, the small intestine is considered during surgical operations as a single organ, without a clear division into segments. The problem of intestinal anastomotic leakage has not yet been resolved, and its proportion is from 3.4 to 15.3%, with a mortality rate of up to 18.6%. Identification of the anatomical features of different segments of the small intestine and their contents is of practical importance in surgery in terms of prevention of complications.
A i m . Identification of morphological features of different segments of the small intestine and their microbiota.
M a t e r i a l s a n d m e t h o d s . An examination of 26 samples of the small intestine during autopsy was performed. The morphological features of the small intestine, its intraluminal microbiota composition, as well as leukocyte infiltration of the intestinal wall were studied at different distances from the ligament of Treitz.
R e s u l t s . The morphological characteristics of the small intestine are both individual (length) and common (changes in venous architectonics and a gradual decrease in intestinal diameter in the caudal direction). The number and cellular composition of leukocytes in the wall of the small intestine are approximately the same, which provides equal immunological protection regardless of the distance from the ligament of Treitz. The concentration of microbial communities and their qualitative composition change at different lengths of the small intestine, with a gradual increase towards the terminal segment. Changes in the qualitative and quantitative composition of the microbiota in the intestinal lumen do not lead to changes in the leukocyte reaction.
C o n c l u s i o n . When planning and performing a surgical operation, it is necessary to take into account the presence of different volumes and species composition of the bacterial load, as well as the morphological characteristics of different segments of the small intestine.
About the Authors
А. V. Kuznetsov
Novosibirsk State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexey V. Kuznetsov – Dr. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor, Head, Department of Operative Surgery and Topographic Anatomy
52, Krasny prosp., Novosibirsk, 630091
О. V. Sorokin
VedaGenetics LLC
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Oleg V. Sorokin – Cand. Sci. (Med.), Director General
Novosibirsk
L. Yu. Kostina
Novosibirsk State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Larisa Yu. Kostina – Cand. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor, Department of Operative Surgery and Topographic Anatomy
Novosibirsk
M. A. Karpov
Novosibirsk State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mikhail A. Karpov – Cand. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor, Department of Pathological Anatomy
Novosibirsk
А. P. Nadeev
Novosibirsk State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksandr P. Nadeev – Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head, Department of Pathological Anatomy
Novosibirsk
V. V. Dolgov
Novosibirsk State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladimir V. Dolgov – 4th year Student
Novosibirsk
А. А. Glazkov
Novosibirsk State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Artur A. Glazkov – Resident Physician, Department of Hospital and Pediatric Surgery
Novosibirsk
References
1. Minnullin М.М., Krasilnikov D.М., Zainullin I.V. et al. Surgical tactics in case of isolated injuries of small and large intestine. Practical Medicine. 2016;5(97):83-87. (In Russ.)
2. Wainer Yu.S., Atamanov K.V., Veryatin Ya.A. Regulation of the infl ammatory response in intestinal anastomosis. Issues of Reconstructive and Plastic Surgery. 2017;3(62):27-32. DOI: 10.17223/1814147/62/04. (In Russ.)
3. Ermolov A.S., Volenko A.V., Gorskiy V.A. et al. Radical elimination of the source of peritonitis is the cardinal problem of surgical treatment of peritonitis. Annal of Surgery, Russian Journal. 2016;21(3):211-214. DOI: 10.18821/1560-9502-2016-21-3-211-214. (In Russ.)
4. Zharikov A.N., Lubyansky V.G., Aliev A.R. Repeated resections of the small bowel and placement of new small-bowel anastomoses in the case of postoperative peritonitis. Clinical and Experimental Surgery. Petrovsky Journal. 2020;8(1):22-28. DOI: 10.33029/2308-1198-2020-8-1-22-28. (In Russ.)
5. Ataro G. Epidural block and neostigmine cause anastomosis leak. Open Access Surg. 2016;9:37-38. DOI: 10.2147/OAS.S105594.
6. Aghaev E.K., Ismayilova Z.E., Mamedov T.E. Prevention suture insuffi ciency in intestinal anastomoses. Novosti Khirurgii. 2022;30(1):86-94. DOI: 10.18484/2305-0047.2022.1.86. (In Russ.)
7. Sukovatykh B.S., Mosolova A.V., Zatolokina M.A. et al. Prevention of intestinal seal insurance under experimental expanded peritonitis. Bulletin of Pirogov National Medical & Surgical Center. 2021;16(3):52-56. DOI: 10.25881/20728255_2021_16_3_52. (In Russ.)
8. Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment. NICE guideline [NG 125]. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng125 (accessed 05.06.2023).
9. Kajtmazova N.K. Gut microbiota and its impact on the body. Modern Issues of Biomedicine. 2022;6(3):8. DOI: 10.51871/2588-0500_2022_06_03_8. (In Russ.)
10. Hall A.B., Tolonen A.C., Xavier R.J. Human genetic variation and the gut microbiome in disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2017;18(11):690-699. DOI: 10.1038/nrg.2017.63.
11. Kinross J., von Roon A.C., Penney N. et al. The gut microbiota as a target for improved surgical outcome and improved patient care. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2009;15(13):1537-1545. DOI: 10.2174/138161209788168119.
12. Saha S., Mara K., Pardi D.S., Khanna S. Long-term safety of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection. Gastroenterology. 2021;160:1961-1969 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.01.010.
13. Lopez-Siles M., Enrich-Capo N., Aldeguer X. et al. Alterations in the abundance and co-occurrence of Akkermansia muciniphila and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in the colonic mucosa of infl ammatory bowel disease subjects. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2018;8:281. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00281.
14. Leylabadlo H.E., Ghotaslou R., Feizabadi M.M. et al. The critical role of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in human health: an overview. Microb. Pathog. 2020;149:104344. DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104344.
15. Veselov V.V., Nechipai A.M., Poltoryhina E.A., Vasilchenko A.V. First experience in full-spectrum colonoscopy. Koloproctologia. 2017;2(60):36-46. (In Russ.)
16. Kaybysheva V.O., Zharova М.Е., Filimendikova K.Yu., Nikonov E.A. Human microbiome: age-related changes and functions. Russian Journal of Evidence-Based Gastroenterology. 2020;9(2):42-55. DOI: 10.17116/dokgastro2020902142. (In Russ.)
17. Chernin V.V., Bondarenko V.M., Parfenov A.I. The participate of human lumen and mucosal gut microbiota in symbiotic digestion. Bulletin of the Orenburg Scientific Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2013;(4):10. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Kuznetsov А.V., Sorokin О.V., Kostina L.Yu., Karpov M.A., Nadeev А.P., Dolgov V.V., Glazkov А.А. Morphological features and microbiota of the small intestine. Journal of Siberian Medical Sciences. 2023;(4):7-22. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31549/2542-1174-2023-7-4-7-22
Views:
297
Email this article 