-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Endoscopic clips versus overstitch suturing system device for mucosotomy closure after peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (G-POEM): a prospective single-center study
R. Hustak, Z. Vackova, J. Krajciova, J. Spicak, E. Kieslichova, J. Mares, J. Martinek
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
NLK
ProQuest Central
od 1997-02-01 do Před 1 rokem
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
od 1987-03-01 do Před 1 rokem
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
od 1997-02-01 do Před 1 rokem
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 1997-02-01 do Před 1 rokem
- MeSH
- achalázie jícnu * chirurgie MeSH
- chirurgické nástroje MeSH
- endoskopie MeSH
- gastroparéza * chirurgie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- pyloromyotomie * metody MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: G-POEM is an emerging method for treatment of severe gastroparesis. Safe mucosal closure is necessary to avoid adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two closure methods: clips and endoscopic suturing (ES) after G-POEM. METHODS: We performed a single center, prospective study. The closure method was assigned at the discretion of an endoscopist prior to the procedure. The main outcome was the proportion of subjects with successful closure. Unsuccessful closure was defined as a need for a rescue method, or a need for an additional intervention or incomplete closure-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were the easiness of closure (VAS score 1 = very difficult, 10 = easy), closure time, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients [21 female; mean age, range 47.5; (20-74)] were included; 20 received ES and 20 clips [mean number of clips 6; range (4-19)]. All 20 patients with ES (100%, 95% CI 84-100%) and 18 patients with clips (89%, 95% CI 70-97%) had successful closure (p = 0.49). One patient needed a rescue method (KING closure) and the other patient an additional clipping on POD1. Closure with clips was quicker [mean time 9.8 (range 4-20) min vs. 14.1 (5-21) min; p = 0.007] and cheaper [mean cost 807 USD (± 402) vs. 2353 USD (± 145); p < 0.001]. Endoscopist assessed the easiness of ES and clips as comparable [mean VAS, range 7.5 (3-10) (ES) vs. 6.9 (3-10) (clips); p = 0.3]. CONCLUSIONS: Both ES and clips are effective methods for mucosal closure in patients undergoing G-POEM. However, centres using clips should have a rescue closure method available as clips may fail in some patients. Closure with ES is more costly than with clips.
Department of Internal Medicine University Hospital Trnava Trnava Slovakia
Faculty of Medicine Ostrava University Ostrava Czech Republic
Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine Prague Czech Republic
Institute of Physiology Charles University Prague Prague Czech Republic
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc22032490
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20230131150818.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 230120s2022 gw f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s00464-022-09417-1 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)35851820
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a gw
- 100 1_
- $a Hustak, R $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute of Physiology, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Trnava, Trnava, Slovakia $1 https://orcid.org/0000000186699024
- 245 10
- $a Endoscopic clips versus overstitch suturing system device for mucosotomy closure after peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (G-POEM): a prospective single-center study / $c R. Hustak, Z. Vackova, J. Krajciova, J. Spicak, E. Kieslichova, J. Mares, J. Martinek
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND AND AIMS: G-POEM is an emerging method for treatment of severe gastroparesis. Safe mucosal closure is necessary to avoid adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two closure methods: clips and endoscopic suturing (ES) after G-POEM. METHODS: We performed a single center, prospective study. The closure method was assigned at the discretion of an endoscopist prior to the procedure. The main outcome was the proportion of subjects with successful closure. Unsuccessful closure was defined as a need for a rescue method, or a need for an additional intervention or incomplete closure-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were the easiness of closure (VAS score 1 = very difficult, 10 = easy), closure time, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients [21 female; mean age, range 47.5; (20-74)] were included; 20 received ES and 20 clips [mean number of clips 6; range (4-19)]. All 20 patients with ES (100%, 95% CI 84-100%) and 18 patients with clips (89%, 95% CI 70-97%) had successful closure (p = 0.49). One patient needed a rescue method (KING closure) and the other patient an additional clipping on POD1. Closure with clips was quicker [mean time 9.8 (range 4-20) min vs. 14.1 (5-21) min; p = 0.007] and cheaper [mean cost 807 USD (± 402) vs. 2353 USD (± 145); p < 0.001]. Endoscopist assessed the easiness of ES and clips as comparable [mean VAS, range 7.5 (3-10) (ES) vs. 6.9 (3-10) (clips); p = 0.3]. CONCLUSIONS: Both ES and clips are effective methods for mucosal closure in patients undergoing G-POEM. However, centres using clips should have a rescue closure method available as clips may fail in some patients. Closure with ES is more costly than with clips.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 12
- $a pyloromyotomie $x metody $7 D000074882
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 12
- $a gastroparéza $x chirurgie $7 D018589
- 650 _2
- $a endoskopie $7 D004724
- 650 _2
- $a chirurgické nástroje $7 D013525
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 650 12
- $a achalázie jícnu $x chirurgie $7 D004931
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Vackova, Z $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute of Physiology, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Krajciova, J $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute of Physiology, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Spicak, J $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Kieslichova, E $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Mares, J $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Martinek, Jan $u Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz $u Institute of Physiology, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz $u Faculty of Medicine, Ostrava University, Ostrava, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz $u Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Videnska 1921, 140 21, Prague 4, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz
- 773 0_
- $w MED00004464 $t Surgical endoscopy $x 1432-2218 $g Roč. 36, č. 12 (2022), s. 9254-9261
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35851820 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20230120 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20230131150814 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1891320 $s 1183825
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2022 $b 36 $c 12 $d 9254-9261 $e 20220718 $i 1432-2218 $m Surgical endoscopy $n Surg Endosc $x MED00004464
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20230120
