BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leaks remain one of the most dreaded complications in gastrointestinal surgery causing significant morbidity, that negatively affect the patients\' quality of life. Experimental studies play an important role in understanding the pathophysiological background of anastomotic healing and there are still many fields that require further investigation. Knowledge drawn from these studies can lead to interventions or techniques that can reduce the risk of anastomotic leak in patients with high-risk features. Despite the advances in experimental protocols and techniques, designing a high-quality study is still challenging for the investigators as there is a plethora of different models used.
OBJECTIVE: To review current state of the art for experimental protocols in high-risk anastomosis in rats.
METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. To identify eligible studies, a comprehensive literature search was performed in the electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE) and Scopus, covering the period from conception until 18 October 2023.
RESULTS: From our search strategy 102 studies were included and were categorized based on the mechanism used to create a high-risk anastomosis. Methods of assessing anastomotic healing were extracted and were individually appraised.
CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic healing studies have evolved over the last decades, but the findings are yet to be translated into human studies. There is a need for high-quality, well-designed studies that will help to the better understanding of the pathophysiology of anastomotic healing and the effects of various interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To identify therapeutic agents for the prophylaxis of gastrointestinal anastomotic leakage (AL) under complicated conditions.
METHODS: The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for English articles published between January 1975 and September 2014. Studies with the primary purpose of improving anastomotic healing in the colon or rectum under complicated preoperative and/or intraoperative conditions were included. We excluded studies investigating the adverse effects or risk assessment of an active intervention. Furthermore, investigations of biophysical materials, sealants, electrical stimulation and nutrients were excluded. The primary study outcome was biomechanical anastomotic strength or AL. The meta-analysis focused on therapeutic agents that were investigated in one animal model using the same outcome by at least three independent research groups.
RESULTS: The 65 studies included were divided into 7 different complicated animal models: Bowel ischemia, ischemia/reperfusion, bowel obstruction, obstructive jaundice, peritonitis, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In total, 48 different therapeutic compounds were examined. The majority of investigated agents (65%) were reported as beneficial for anastomotic healing. Twelve of the agents (25%) were tested more than once in the same model, whereas 13 (27%) of the agents were tested in two or more models of complicated healing. Two therapeutic agents met our inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Postoperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy significantly increased anastomotic bursting pressure in ischemic colon anastomoses by a mean of 28 mmHg (95%CI: 17 to 39 mmHg, P < 0.00001). Granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor failed to show a significant increase in anastomotic bursting pressure (95%CI: -20 to 21 mmHg, P = 0.97) vs controls in experimental chemotherapeutic models.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified potential therapeutic agents, but more studies are needed before concluding that any of these are useful for AL prophylaxis.