Suppr超能文献

猪离体模型中带额外工作通道的内镜黏膜切除术(EMR+):一种提高圈套息肉切除术整块切除率的新技术。

Endoscopic mucosal resection with an additional working channel (EMR+) in a porcine ex vivo model: a novel technique to improve en bloc resection rate of snare polypectomy.

作者信息

Knoop Richard F, Wedi Edris, Petzold Golo, Bremer Sebastian C B, Amanzada Ahmad, Ellenrieder Volker, Neesse Albrecht, Kunsch Steffen

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Oncology, University Medical Center, Goettingen, Germany.

出版信息

Endosc Int Open. 2020 Feb;8(2):E99-E104. doi: 10.1055/a-0996-8050. Epub 2020 Jan 22.

Abstract

Recently, a new external additional working channel (AWC) was introduced by which conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) can be improved to a technique termed "EMR+". We first evaluated this novel technique in comparison to classical EMR in flat lesions.  The trial was prospectively conducted in an ex vivo animal model with porcine stomachs placed into the EASIE-R simulator. Prior to intervention, standardized lesions were set by coagulation dots, measuring 1, 2, 3 or 4 cm.  Overall, 152 procedures were performed. EMR and EMR+ were both very reliable in 1-cm lesions, each showing en bloc resection rates of 100 %. EMR+ en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in 2-cm lesions (95.44 % vs. 54.55 %,  = 0.02), in 3-cm lesions (86.36 % vs. 18.18 %,  < 0.01) and also in 4-cm lesions (60.00 % vs. 0 %,  < 0.01). Perforations occurred only in EMR+ procedures in 4-cm lesions (3 of 20; 15 %).  With its grasp-and-snare technique, EMR+ facilitates en bloc resection of larger lesions compared to conventional EMR. In lesions 2 cm and larger, EMR+ has demonstrated advantages, especially concerning en bloc resection rate. At 3 cm, EMR+ reaches its best discriminatory power whereas EMR+ has inherent limits at 4 cm and in lesions of that size, other techniques such as ESD or surgery should be considered.

摘要

最近,引入了一种新的外部附加工作通道(AWC),通过该通道可将传统的内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)改进为一种称为“EMR+”的技术。我们首先在扁平病变中,将这种新技术与经典EMR进行了比较评估。该试验前瞻性地在一个体外动物模型中进行,将猪胃放入EASIE-R模拟器中。在干预前,通过凝固点设置标准化病变,大小为1、2、3或4厘米。总体而言,共进行了152例手术。EMR和EMR+在1厘米病变中都非常可靠,整块切除率均为100%。在2厘米病变中,EMR+的整块切除率显著更高(95.44%对54.55%,P = 0.02),在3厘米病变中也是如此(86.36%对18.18%,P < 0.01),在4厘米病变中同样如此(60.00%对0%,P < 0.01)。穿孔仅发生在4厘米病变的EMR+手术中(20例中有3例;15%)。与传统EMR相比,EMR+通过其抓持圈套技术便于更大病变的整块切除。在2厘米及更大的病变中,EMR+已显示出优势,尤其是在整块切除率方面。在3厘米时,EMR+具有最佳的鉴别能力,而在4厘米及该大小的病变中,EMR+存在固有局限性,应考虑其他技术,如内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)或手术。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eb57/6976338/a392a7afeb95/10-1055-a-0996-8050-i1507ei1.jpg

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