Suppr超能文献

在实验模型中,电磁辅助内镜黏膜下剥离术比水刀辅助和传统内镜黏膜下剥离术更有效。

Electromagnetic assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection is more efficient than water-jet assisted and conventional ESD in experimental model.

作者信息

Rodríguez Sánchez Joaquín, Rodríguez Sánchez Eduardo, de la Santa Belda Eva, Olivencia Pilar Palomar, Salmoral Luque Rosario, Sánchez Alonso Mónica, Olmedo Camacho José, Redondo Calvo Francisco Javier

机构信息

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit. Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real (Spain).

Translational Research Unit. Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real (Spain).

出版信息

Endosc Int Open. 2018 Apr;6(4):E498-E504. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-125364. Epub 2018 Mar 29.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The adequate visualization of the dissection line, inside the submucosal layer, supposes the main challenging issue in ESD. For this reason, several counter traction methods have been developed focused on overcoming this handicap. One of which, Magnetic anchor guided - ESD (MG-ESD) is an attractive alternative. However, the usefulness of this approach has been scarcely assessed and compared with other ESD strategies. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare three different ESD alternatives in experimental faction.

METHODS

This was a prospective non-randomized study, in which three different ESD techniques were performed in an ex-vivo gastric porcine model by an endoscopist slight expertise in ESD: conventional ESD, waterjet assisted ESD and MG-ESD. MG-ESD was performed using two different magnets: inner Neodymiun ringed shape magnet attached to the simulated lesions by an endoclip and external electromagnet connected to a Single Output Adjustable 24V/0.3A Power Supply Unit.

RESULTS

Forty-six ESD procedures were performed: 24 conventional ESD, 12 waterjet-assisted ESD and 10 MG-ESD. Average size of the simulated lesions was 33.86 mm. No differences in terms of safety and efficacy were registered between the three approaches. Nevertheless, MG-ESD proved to be faster and more efficient than conventional ESD and water-jet assisted ESD (min per cm 10.85 vs. 7.43 vs. 3,41;  = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MG-ESD could be a feasible alternative to conventional ESD even at the beginning of the learning curve. Therefore, researches focused on developing appropriate ESD magnetic devices and further comparative studies must be promoted, in order to assess the reliable usefulness of the magnet-assistance in ESD.

摘要

背景与研究目的

在黏膜下层内充分显示剥离线是内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)的主要挑战。因此,已开发出多种对抗牵引方法来克服这一障碍。其中,磁锚引导ESD(MG-ESD)是一种有吸引力的替代方法。然而,这种方法的实用性很少得到评估,也未与其他ESD策略进行比较。因此,本研究的目的是在实验层面比较三种不同的ESD替代方法。

方法

这是一项前瞻性非随机研究,由一名在ESD方面略有经验的内镜医师在离体猪胃模型中进行三种不同的ESD技术:传统ESD、水刀辅助ESD和MG-ESD。MG-ESD使用两种不同的磁体进行:内部钕环形磁体通过一个内镜夹附着在模拟病变上,外部电磁铁连接到一个单输出可调24V/0.3A电源装置。

结果

共进行了46例ESD手术:24例传统ESD、12例水刀辅助ESD和10例MG-ESD。模拟病变的平均大小为33.86mm。三种方法在安全性和有效性方面没有差异。然而,MG-ESD被证明比传统ESD和水刀辅助ESD更快、更有效(每厘米分钟数为10.85对7.43对3.41;P = 0.001)。

结论

即使在学习曲线初期,MG-ESD也可能是传统ESD的一种可行替代方法。因此,必须推动专注于开发合适的ESD磁性装置的研究以及进一步的比较研究,以评估磁辅助在ESD中的可靠实用性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4fc3/5876038/61d3a7605cf5/10-1055-s-0043-125364-i1074ei1.jpg

相似文献

6
Simplified magnetic anchor-guided endoscopic submucosal dissection: an ex vivo porcine model.
Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl Ed). 2022 Jan-Mar;87(1):13-19. doi: 10.1016/j.rgmxen.2021.03.002. Epub 2021 Apr 6.
7
8
Simplified magnetic anchor-guided endoscopic submucosal dissection: an ex vivo porcine model.
Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl Ed). 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1016/j.rgmx.2020.09.007.
10
Usefulness of the flexible traction method in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: an in-vivo animal study.
Surg Endosc. 2020 Dec;34(12):5632-5639. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07850-8. Epub 2020 Aug 4.

引用本文的文献

1
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Facilitating Techniques Among Non-experts: A Systematic Literature Review.
Dig Dis Sci. 2023 Jun;68(6):2561-2584. doi: 10.1007/s10620-022-07784-2. Epub 2023 Apr 6.

本文引用的文献

1
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the West - when can satisfactory results be obtained? A single-operator learning curve analysis.
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017 Dec;52(12):1442-1452. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2017.1379557. Epub 2017 Sep 25.
2
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: predictors and neoplasm-related gradients of difficulty.
Endosc Int Open. 2017 Sep;5(9):E839-E846. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-113566. Epub 2017 Sep 12.
3
Magnetic anchor guidance for endoscopic submucosal dissection and other endoscopic procedures.
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Apr 28;23(16):2883-2890. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i16.2883.
4
Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.
Endoscopy. 2015 Sep;47(9):829-54. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1392882. Epub 2015 Aug 28.
5
6
Advanced endoscopic submucosal dissection with traction.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Jul 16;6(7):286-95. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v6.i7.286.
8
Endoscopic submucosal dissection of esophageal cancer using the Mucosectom2 device: a feasibility study.
Endoscopy. 2013 Nov;45(11):869-75. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1344229. Epub 2013 Jul 24.
9
Animal feasibility study of an innovated splash-needle for endoscopic submucosal dissection in the upper gastrointestinal tract.
Dig Endosc. 2013 Jan;25(1):7-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01327.x. Epub 2012 Jun 3.
10
Magnetic instrumentation and other applications of magnets in NOTES.
Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2012 Jun;7(2):67-73. doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2011.25665. Epub 2011 Nov 10.

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