Comparing over-the-scope clip versus endoloop and clips (KING closure) for access site closure: a randomized experimental study
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
- MeSH
- endoskopické operace přirozenými otvory metody MeSH
- náhodné rozdělení MeSH
- prasata MeSH
- rektum chirurgie MeSH
- techniky uzavření břišních poranění přístrojové vybavení MeSH
- žaludek chirurgie MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Check Tag
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
BACKGROUND: A safe technique is essential for successful access site closure in Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) and for closures of iatrogenic perforations. AIM: To compare an over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus an endoloop + endoclips closure technique (KING closure). METHODS: 40 minipigs underwent NOTES peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy. Gastrotomies and rectotomies were closed with OTSC (n = 20; 10× stomach, 10× rectum) or KING closure (n = 20; 10× stomach, 10× rectum). The animals were euthanized 28 days after the procedure. The main outcome variables were technical feasibility, effectiveness, and healing. RESULTS: Stomach: All but one closure (KING) was successfully completed. The times of closure were similar between the techniques. At necropsy, all access sites were healed. In two animals (1× KING, 1× OTSC), an abscess, probably related to the closure technique, was found. Histologically, transmural healing with muscular bridging was observable in nine pigs for KING versus two pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.003). Inflammation was present in three pigs for KING versus seven pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.08). Rectum: All closures were successfully completed. The times of closure were similar between the techniques. At necropsy, all closure sites had healed. Transmural healing with muscular bridging was present in nine pigs for KING versus two pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.003). Inflammation was present in two pigs for KING versus seven pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.03). In one animal (OTSC), an enterocolic fistula developed in the proximity of the closure site. CONCLUSIONS: OTSC and KING closure are comparable closure techniques in terms of technical feasibility and effectiveness. KING closure provides a superior histological outcome compared with OTSC closure.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Jul;66(1):162-7 PubMed
Endoscopy. 2008 Jul;40(7):595-601 PubMed
Endoscopy. 2009 Dec;41(12):1056-61 PubMed
Endoscopy. 2008 Jul;40(7):584-8 PubMed
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Aug;72(2):343-50 PubMed
Surg Endosc. 2012 Jul;26(7):1952-62 PubMed
Endoscopy. 2011 Mar;43(3):217-22 PubMed
Endoscopy. 2009 Feb;41(2):149-53 PubMed
Surg Endosc. 2011 Sep;25(9):2901-5 PubMed
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Mar;73(3):550-5 PubMed
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Apr;71(4):806-11 PubMed
Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Nov;60(5):836-8 PubMed
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Aug;70(2):405-6; author reply 406 PubMed
World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Oct 14;16(38):4792-9 PubMed
Surg Endosc. 2011 Mar;25(3):728-36 PubMed
World J Gastroenterol. 2012 Jul 21;18(27):3558-64 PubMed
Comparison of Inflammatory Response to Transgastric and Transcolonic NOTES
