Suppr超能文献

随机对照试验比较新型经内镜缝合系统和经内镜上圈套扎系统用于胃和结直肠内镜黏膜下剥离术缺损闭合的效果(附视频)。

Randomized trial of gastric and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection defect closure comparing a novel through-the-scope suturing system with an over-the-scope suturing system (with video).

机构信息

Division of Gastroenterology, Bayhealth Medical Center, Dover, Delaware, USA.

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

出版信息

Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Feb;99(2):237-244.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.07.046. Epub 2023 Aug 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Mucosal closure adds time but reduces adverse events associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to assess the closure time (CT), technical success, and cost-effectiveness between a novel through-the-scope helix tack suture system (TTSS) and the over-the-scope suturing system (OTSS).

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, randomized trial, all patients undergoing ESD with anticipated closure were randomized 1:1 to TTSS (study group) or OTSS (control group). Primary outcomes were CT and overall CT (OCT; CT + setup time). Secondary outcomes were rates of technical success, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Forty patients were randomized to OTSS (n = 20) or TTSS (n = 20). OTSS and TTSS groups were similar with respect to age, gender, proportion of colorectal polyps, proximal colon polyps, and mean size of the resected specimen (40.9 mm vs 40.4 mm). The mean CT was 18.4 minutes for OTSS and 23.3 minutes for TTSS (P = .36). The mean OCT was 32 minutes for OTSS and 39.5 minutes for TTSS (P = .36). Closure with a primary device was successful in 17 cases (85%) with OTSS and 18 cases (90%) with TTSS (P = .63). No closure-related intraprocedural adverse events or delayed perforations were noted. Mean cost of closure was significantly lower in the TTSS group for lesions <35 mm (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

TTSS was not found to be superior to OTSS with respect to CT and technical and clinical success for closure of gastric and colorectal ESD defects. TTSS is more cost-effective for closure of lesions <35 mm. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04925271.).

摘要

背景和目的

黏膜封闭虽然会增加时间,但可以减少内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)相关的不良事件。本研究旨在评估新型经内镜螺旋钉缝合系统(TTSS)与经内镜套扎缝合系统(OTSS)之间的封闭时间(CT)、技术成功率和成本效益。

方法

这是一项单中心、前瞻性、随机试验,所有接受 ESD 治疗且预计需要封闭的患者按 1:1 比例随机分为 TTSS(研究组)或 OTSS(对照组)。主要结局是 CT 和总 CT(OCT;CT+设置时间)。次要结局是技术成功率、不良事件和成本效益。

结果

40 例患者被随机分为 OTSS(n=20)或 TTSS(n=20)组。OTSS 和 TTSS 组在年龄、性别、结直肠息肉比例、结肠近端息肉比例和切除标本的平均大小(40.9mm vs 40.4mm)方面相似。OTSS 的平均 CT 为 18.4 分钟,TTSS 的平均 CT 为 23.3 分钟(P=0.36)。OTSS 的平均 OCT 为 32 分钟,TTSS 的平均 OCT 为 39.5 分钟(P=0.36)。OTSS 组有 17 例(85%)和 TTSS 组有 18 例(90%)采用主要器械成功封闭(P=0.63)。未观察到与封闭相关的术中不良事件或迟发性穿孔。对于<35mm 的病变,TTSS 组的封闭平均成本明显低于 OTSS 组(P=0.008)。

结论

在胃和结直肠 ESD 缺损的封闭方面,TTSS 与 OTSS 相比,在 CT 以及技术和临床成功率方面没有优势。对于<35mm 的病变,TTSS 更具成本效益。(临床试验注册号:NCT04925271.)。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验