Suppr超能文献

一种新型的灵活双极止血夹的随机对照比较,该止血夹主要设计用于NOTES 与传统的外科腹腔镜双极止血夹相比,用于猪模型中的腹腔内血管密封。

A randomized comparison of a new flexible bipolar hemostasis forceps designed principally for NOTES versus a conventional surgical laparoscopic bipolar forceps for intra-abdominal vessel sealing in a porcine model.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Ostra, Göteborg, Sweden.

出版信息

Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Apr;71(4):835-41. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.08.011. Epub 2009 Nov 26.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Current devices for hemostasis in flexible endoscopy are inferior to methods used during open or laparoscopic surgery and might be ineffective for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To compare new flexible bipolar forceps (FBF), designed principally for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, with laparoscopic bipolar forceps (LBF) for hemostasis of intra-abdominal porcine arteries.

SETTING

Surgical laboratories in Europe and the United States.

DESIGN AND INTERVENTIONS

New FBF for hemostasis (3.7-mm diameter), featuring electrode isolation, were compared with rigid 5-mm LBF (ERBE BiClamp LAP forceps) at recommended settings. A porcine model of acute hemostasis was prepared by suturing the uterine horns and cecum to the abdominal wall, exposing uterine arteries, ovarian pedicles, cecal mesenteric bundles, and the inferior mesenteric artery. This allowed access to 10 vessels in each pig by transabdominal laparoscopic devices or a transgastric double-channel gastroscope. Vessels were measured, coagulated at 4 and more points, and transected. Blood pressure was increased to more than 200 mm Hg for 10 minutes by administering phenylephrine. Delayed bleeding was identified.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

In 7 pigs, a total of 65 vessels (1.5-6.0 mm) were randomly allocated to FBF (n = 32) or LBF (n = 33). Successful hemostasis both before and after blood pressure increase was equivalent between the 2 groups (before: 88% FBF vs 88% LBF, not significant [NS]; after: 97% FBF vs 94% LBF, NS). With FBF, the number of seals per vessel was 4.8 vs 4.4 with LBF (NS). The energy used to create FBF seals was 19.8 J vs 38.2 J for LBF (P < .05).

LIMITATIONS

Results from porcine studies may not reflect patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a porcine model, transgastric FBF endoscopic hemostasis was as effective as conventional laparoscopic hemostasis using LBF across a wide range of vessels.

摘要

背景

目前用于软式内镜止血的器械不如开放或腹腔镜手术中使用的方法有效,对于经自然腔道内镜外科手术可能无效。

目的

比较新的柔性双极止血钳(FBF),主要设计用于经自然腔道内镜外科手术,与腹腔镜双极止血钳(LBF)在止血猪的腹部动脉方面的效果。

设置

欧洲和美国的外科实验室。

设计和干预措施

新的 FBF 用于止血(直径 3.7 毫米),具有电极隔离功能,与推荐设置下的刚性 5 毫米 LBF(ERBE BiClamp LAP 止血钳)进行比较。通过将子宫角和盲肠缝合到腹壁,暴露子宫动脉、卵巢蒂、盲肠肠系膜束和肠系膜下动脉,制备急性止血的猪模型。这允许通过经腹腹腔镜器械或经胃双通道胃镜进入每只猪的 10 个血管。测量血管,在 4 个或更多点进行凝固,并进行横断。通过给予苯肾上腺素将血压升高至超过 200 毫米汞柱 10 分钟。确定延迟性出血。

主要观察指标

在 7 只猪中,总共 65 条血管(1.5-6.0 毫米)随机分配给 FBF(n=32)或 LBF(n=33)。两组在血压升高前后的止血成功率相当(前:88%FBF 与 88%LBF,无统计学意义[NS];后:97%FBF 与 94%LBF,NS)。使用 FBF 时,每条血管的密封数为 4.8 个,而使用 LBF 时为 4.4 个(NS)。创建 FBF 密封的能量为 19.8 J,而 LBF 为 38.2 J(P<.05)。

局限性

猪研究的结果可能无法反映患者的结果。

结论

在猪模型中,经胃 FBF 内镜止血与传统腹腔镜止血使用 LBF 在广泛的血管范围内一样有效。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验