Johnston J H, Jensen D M, Mautner W
Gastroenterology. 1982 May;82(5 Pt 1):904-10.
The most promising endoscopic hemostatic techniques all depend upon heat to coagulate. Four thermally active techniques under similar controlled conditions in this endoscopic study were compared. The study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and histologic damage of monopolar electrocoagulation (MPEC), bipolar electrocoagulation (BPEC), argon laser photocoagulation (ALP) and neodymium-yytrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser photocoagulation applied endoscopically to control bleeding from standard canine gastric ulcers. An open-closed model utilizing a nontraumatic intestinal clamp in heparinized adult mongrel dogs was used. Bleeding ulcers were randomly assigned to an endoscopic treatment modality or control. The endoscopic techniques and parameters of treatment for this study were established from a previous experience with each modality and from endoscopic treatment in pilot studies. Quantitative efficacy and subjective ease of endoscopic treatment were evaluated acutely; gross and histologic injury were determined after 7 days. Our conclusions were that more energy or greater power was required with each method to treat bleeding standard ulcers efficiently through the endoscope than at laparotomy. It was also concluded that each method was 93% or more effective in halting bleeding in this canine ulcer model but there were differences in ease of endoscopic use. Both lasers were much easier to apply than electrocoagulation. The order of decreasing ease of application was YAG, ALP, MPEC, BPEC. Argon laser and BPEC caused significantly less tissue injury than either MPEC or YAG. The order of increasing injury or decreasing margin of safety was ALP, BPEC, YAG and MPEC. In contrast to electrocoagulation, especially monopolar, laser related tissue injury was generally predictable and correlated with total treatment energy, animal weight or gastric overdistension, or both. The limitations, advantages, and disadvantages of each hemostatic technique are discussed and compared.
最有前景的内镜止血技术均依赖热凝作用。本内镜研究在相似的可控条件下,对四种热活性技术进行了比较。开展该研究是为了比较单极电凝(MPEC)、双极电凝(BPEC)、氩激光光凝(ALP)和钕钇铝石榴石(YAG)激光光凝在内镜下控制标准犬胃溃疡出血的疗效及组织学损伤。采用一种在肝素化成年杂种犬中使用无创伤肠钳的开放 - 闭合模型。出血性溃疡被随机分配至一种内镜治疗方式或作为对照。本研究的内镜技术及治疗参数是根据之前每种方式的经验以及前期研究中的内镜治疗确定的。急性评估内镜治疗的定量疗效和主观操作难易程度;7天后确定大体和组织学损伤情况。我们的结论是,与开腹手术相比,通过内镜有效治疗标准出血性溃疡时,每种方法都需要更多能量或更高功率。还得出结论,在该犬溃疡模型中,每种方法在止血方面的有效率均达93%或更高,但在内镜使用的难易程度上存在差异。两种激光都比电凝更容易操作。应用难易程度由高到低依次为YAG、ALP、MPEC、BPEC。氩激光和BPEC造成的组织损伤明显少于MPEC或YAG。损伤程度增加或安全 margin 降低的顺序为ALP、BPEC、YAG和MPEC。与电凝(尤其是单极电凝)不同,激光相关的组织损伤通常是可预测的,并且与总治疗能量、动物体重或胃过度扩张或两者相关。讨论并比较了每种止血技术的局限性、优点和缺点。