Pediatric Surgery International

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 671–677 | Cite as

Segmental reversal of distal small intestine in short bowel syndrome: a study on the influence on postoperative weight and intestinal topography in piglets

  • Pernille Kock Grave
  • Sabrina Valentin Thomsen
  • Pia Susanne Clark
  • Gunvor Iben Madsen
  • Niels Qvist
  • Mark Bremholm Ellebæk
Original Article



The objective of the present study was to investigate the effect of segmental reversal of the distal 20 cm of the small intestine in piglets with induced SBS compared to controls with SBS alone. Primary endpoint was postoperative weight change over a period of 1 month. Secondary endpoints were the influence on cell proliferation and mucosal architecture shown by histological analysis.


Sixteen piglets underwent a 60% resection of the distal small intestine and were randomized into two groups. Group 1 short bowel syndrome alone (SBS) (n = 8) and group 2 with reversal of a distal small intestinal segment (SBS-RS) (n = 8). Body weight was measured daily and the pigs were euthanized after 1 month. Crypt depths, villus heights and muscle layers thicknesses were measured. For the evaluation of microvilli of the brush border of the epithelium and cell proliferation, immunohistochemical staining with Villin and Ki-67 was performed.


No statistically significant differences were observed concerning weight gain. Mean ± SD weight gain was 2.31 ± 2.85 kg for SBS-RS and 2.03 ± 1.27 kg for SBS (p = 0.8). In the proximal jejunal segment a significant increase in villus heights was found in the SBS group and increase in the thickness of the circular and longitudinal muscle layers in the SBS-RS group. In the distal ileal segment the longitudinal muscle layer thicknesses were increased in the SBS group. Otherwise, no significant changes were found.


Reversal of a 20-cm distal segment showed no effect on weight gain, but there were some significant histological changes of unknown clinical significance.


Short bowel syndrome Segmental reversal Nutrition Small intestinal topography 



Jakob Le Fèvre Harslund, Pernille Simonsen and Peter Bollen, Biomedical Laboratory, University of Southern Denmark, for technical assistance. Kirsten Dahl, Department of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, for the histological preparation. Ulrich Halekoh, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, for statistical assistance.


The study was funded by Odense University Hospital Research Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.

Ethical approval

The study was performed in compliance with the ethical standards for experimental studies on animals and was approved by The Animal Experiments Inspectorate (2015-15-0201-00551).


  1. 1.
    O’Keefe SJ, Buchman AL, Fishbein TM, Jeejeebhoy KN, Jeppesen PB, Shaffer J (2006) Short bowel syndrome and intestinal failure. Consensus definitions and overview. Clin Grastroenterol Hepatol 4:6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weale A, Edwards A, Bailey M, Lear P (2005) Intestinal adaptation after massive intestinal resection. Postgrad Med J 81:178–184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Warner BW (2016) The pathogenesis of resection-associated intestinal adaptation. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyer-Beriot L, Joly F, Maggiori L et al (2012) Segmental reversal of small bowel can end permanent parenteral nutrition dependency. An experience of 38 adults with short bowel syndrome. Ann Surg 256:739–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Layac S, Beyer L, Corcos O et al (2013) Increased intestinal absorption by segmental reversal of the small bowel in adult patients with short-bowel syndrome. A case control study. Am J Clin Nutr 97:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Søndenaa K, Nesvik I, Nygaard K, Sauer T (1991) Mucosal surface area of reversed intestinal segment in rats. Scand J Gastroenterol 26:1240–1246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chabert J, Pellissier S, Eribon O, Roche M (2000) Reversed bowel segments for the treatment of short bowel syndrome. Assessment of their minimal length in correlation with electromyographic pattern in the rat. Neurogastroenterol Motil 12:53–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Digalakis M, Papamichail M, Glava C et al (2011) Interposition of reversed jejunal segment enhances intestinal adaptation in short bowel syndrome. An experimental study on pigs. J Surg Res 171:551–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koffeman GL, Hulscher JB, Schoots IG, van Gulik TM, Heij HA, Van Gemert WG (2015) Intestinal lengthening and reversed segment in a piglet short bowel syndrome model. J Surg Res 195:433–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thompson JS, Quigley EM, Adrian TE (1995) Effect of reversed intestinal segments on intestinal structure and function. J Surg Res 58:19–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weih S, Nickkholgh A, Kessler M et al (2013) Models of short bowel syndrome in pigs. A technical review. Eur Surg Res 51:66–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee CH, Lo HC, Chou MC, Tsai HR (2007) Oral antibiotics attenuate bowel segment reversal-induced systemic inflammatory response and body weight loss in massively bowel-resected rats. JPN J Parenter Enter Nutr 31:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gillard L, Mayeur C, Robert V et al (2017) Microbiota is involved in post-resection adaptation in humans with short bowel syndrome. Front Physiol 8:224CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson JS, Langnas AN, Pinch LW et al (1995) Surgical approach to short bowel syndrome. Experience in a population of 160 patients. Ann Surg 222:600–605CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Layec S, Beyer L, Corcos O et al (2013) Increased intestinal absorption by segmental reversal of the small bowel in adult patients with short-bowel syndrome. A case-control-study. Am J Clin Nutr 97:100–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Surgical Department AOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of PathologyOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  3. 3.Danish Centre for Regenerative MedicineOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark

Personalised recommendations