Magnetic Compression Ostomy as New Cystostomy Technique in the Rat: Magnacystostomy

　　Magnetic Compression Ostomy as New Cystostomy Technique in the Rat: Magnacystostomy
　　Ibrahim Uygun , Mehmet Hanifi Okur , Hasan Cimen , Aysenur Keles , Ozben Yalcin , Hayrettin Ozturk , Selcuk Otcu
　　Department of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatric Urology , Medical Faculty of Dicle University , Diyarbakir , Turkey , Department of Pathology , Medical Faculty of Dicle University , Diyarbakir , Neodymium Magnets
http://www.999magnet.com/products/110-sintered-neodymium-magnets Turkey , Department of Pathology , Hospital of Children , Diyarbakir , Turkey , Department of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatric Urology , Medical Faculty of Abant Izzet Baysal University , Bolu , Turkey
　　Objective To report the first creation of magnetic compression cystostomy (magnacystostomy) using an easy and simple new technique in rats. Magnetic compression anastomoses (magnamosis) have been previously described for gastrointestinal, biliary, urinary, and vascular anastomoses. Methods Female rats were randomized into 2 groups (n = 10 each): a magnetic cystostomy group and a formal surgical cystostomy group as the control group. In the magnetic cystostomy group, a very small cylindrical magn ...et was inserted into the bladder. The external magnetic ball was placed subcutaneously into the suprapubic region, and the 2 magnets were coupled together strongly. On postoperative day 20 in the magnetic cystostomy group and day 10 in the surgical cystostomy group, the rats were killed, and the cystostomies were evaluated macroscopically, histopathologically, and by mechanical burst testing. Results In the surgical cystostomy group, 3 rats died. In the remaining rats, no evidence of complications was observed. However, mild adhesion in 1 rat in the magnetic cystostomy group and moderate adhesions in all the rats in the surgical cystostomy group were observed. No significant difference was found in burst pressure between the 2 groups (mean 162 mm Hg in the magnetic cystostomy group [n = 6] and 185 mm Hg in the surgical cystostomy [n = 5] group). However, the procedure time between the magnetic cystostomy group (7.70 ± 1.64 minutes) and surgical cystostomy group (18.50 ± 2.01 minutes) was significantly different ( P < .001). Conclusion Magnacystostomy is easy and safe in the rat model and could be useful for some suprapubic cystostomy procedures in humans.