OBJETIVO: Avaliar uma técnica de reconstituição da válvula ileocecal com base em técnicas anti-refluxo vesicoureteral. MÉTODOS: Quatorze beagles foram operados. Em sete foi reconstituída a válvula ileocecal com a técnica proposta e nos outros sete realizou-se apenas a anastomose ileocólica término-terminal. Para avaliar a neoválvula realizou-se o acompanhamento clínico dos cães, a análise microbiológica e o estudo manométrico. RESULTADOS: Clinicamente, durante os 45 dias de pós-operatório, não houve diferença entre os cães com e sem reconstituição da válvula ileocecal. Na análise de bactérias aeróbias, a bactéria predominante foi a Escherichia coli. Quantitativamente, as culturas cresceram de modo irregular, não permitindo a comparação do crescimento bacteriano entre os grupos com e sem válvula ileocecal. A neoválvula apresentou uma pressão de refluxo ileocólica semelhante a da válvula ileocecal fisiológica (P>0,05). Em relação ao grupo sem válvula, as pressões de refluxo da válvula fisiológica e da neoválvula foram significantemente maiores, sendo P<0,05 e P<0,001, respectivamente. CONCLUSÃO: A neoválvula ileocecal serviu de obstáculo ao refluxo colo-ileal de maneira semelhante à válvula ileocecal fisiológica.
PURPOSE: The importance of keeping the ileocecal valve in the intestinal ressections has been reported by several authors. When preserved, the ileocecal valve was related to a longer survival and prevention of the short bowel syndrome, due to its ability to block the colonic content reflux into the ileum and to avoid the rapid empting of the ileal content into the cecum. It was assessed a tecnique of ileocecal valve reconstitution, based on vesicoureteral anti-reflux tecniques. METHODS: Fourteen beagles were operated. Seven underwent ileocecal valve reconstitution following the tecnique proposed and in the other seven a simple end-to-end anastomosis was performed. To assess the new valve, it was done the clinical follow up, the microbiologic analysis and the manometric study. RESULTS: Clinically, during 45 days of follow up, there was no difference between the dogs with and without ileocecal reconstitution. In the aerobic bacteria analysis, the predominant bacterium was Escherichia coli. Quantitatively, the cultures grew in an irregular way, so that it was not able to compare the bacterial growth between the groups with or without ileocecal valve. The new valve had a colo-ileal reflux pressure similar to that of the physiological valve (P>0.05). However, when compared to the non valve group, the reflux pressures of the physiological valve and new valve were significantly higher, with P<0.05 and P<0.001, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study, the reconstituted ileocecal valve served as a barrier to the colo-ileal reflux just as the physiological valve does.
