Abstract Purpose To investigate the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on colonic anastomosis healing with and without ischemia in rats. Methods Forty female rats underwent segmental resection of 1 cm of the left colon followed by end-to-end anastomosis. They were randomly assigned to four groups (n=10 each), a sham group; two groups were submitted to Hyperbaric Oxygen therapy (HBOT) with and without induced ischemia and the induced ischemia group without HBOT. The HBOT protocol evaluated was 100% O2 at 2.4 Atmosphere absolute pressure (ATA) for 60 minutes, two sessions before as a preconditioning protocol and three sessions after the operation. Clinical course and mortality were monitored during all experiment and on the day of euthanasia on the fourth day after laparotomy. Macroscopic appearance of the abdominal cavity were assessed and samples for breaking strength of the anastomosis and histopathological parameters were collected. Results There was no statistically significant difference in mortality or anastomosis leak between the four experimental groups. Anastomosis breaking strength was similar across groups. Conclusion The HBOT protocol tested herein at 2.4 ATA did not affect histopathological and biomechanical parameters of colonic anastomotic healing, neither the clinical outcomes death and anastomosis leak on the fourth day after laparotomy.

Abstract Purpose: To identify the most relevant flaws in standardization in husbandry practices and lack of transparency to report them. This review proposes some measures in order to improve transparency, reproducibility and eventually external validity in experimental surgery experiments with rat model. Methods: We performed a search of scientific articles in PUBMED data base. The survey was conducted from august 2016 to January 2017. The keywords used were "reproducibility", "external validity", "rat model", "rat husbandry", "rat housing", and the time frame was up to January 2017. Articles discarded were the ones which the abstract or the key words did not imply that the authors would discuss any relationship of husbandry and housing with the reproducibility and transparency of reporting animal experiment. Reviews and papers that discussed specifically reproducibility and data reporting transparency were laboriously explored, including references for other articles that could fulfil the inclusion criteria. A total of 246 articles were initially found but only 44 were selected. Results: Lack of transparency is the rule and not the exception when reporting results with rat model. This results in poor reproducibility and low external validity with the consequence of considerable loss of time and financial resources. There are still much to be done to improve compliance and adherence of researchers, editors and reviewers to adopt guidelines to mitigate some of the challenges that can impair reproducibility and external validity. Conclusions: Authors and reviewers should avoid pitfalls of absent, insufficient or inaccurate description of relevant information the rat model used. This information should be correctly published or reported on another source easily available for readers. Environmental conditions are well known by laboratory animal personnel and are well controlled in housing facilities, but usually neglected in experimental laboratories when the rat model is a novelty for the researcher.