Publication:

Prospective randomized comparison of gastrotomy closure associating tunnel access and over-the-scope clip (OTSC) with two other methods in an experimental ex vivo setting

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2015

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Gonzalez, Jean-Michel, Kayoko Saito, Changdon Kang, Mark Gromski, Mandeep Sawhney, Ram Chuttani, and Kai Matthes. 2015. “Prospective randomized comparison of gastrotomy closure associating tunnel access and over-the-scope clip (OTSC) with two other methods in an experimental ex vivo setting.” Endoscopy International Open 3 (1): E83-E89. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1390794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1390794.

Abstract

Background: Safe transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) procedures require a reliable closure of the gastrotomy. Recently a novel peritoneal access method via a submucosal tunnel has been described with encouraging preliminary results. Aim: The aim is to compare a submucosal tunnel access plus over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system for closure with two other closure modalities. Patients and methods: This is a prospective ex vivo study conducted on 42 porcine stomach models equally randomized into three groups in an academic medical center. The procedures performed in each group included: (1) Tunnel (6 cm) + endoclips; (2) Knife + balloon dilation access + OTSC; and (3) Tunnel + OTSC. A pressurized air-leak test was performed to evaluate the strength of the closure. Stomach volumes, procedure times, number of clips, and incision sizes were also registered. Results: The mean air-leak pressure was statistically higher in Group 3 than in Groups 1 and 2–95.2 ± 19.3 mmHg versus 72.5 ± 35.2 and 79.0 ± 24.5 mmHg (P < 0.05). The gastrotomy creation times for Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 28.0 ± 10.1, 4.3 ± 1.4, and 20.1 ± 10.6 minutes, respectively, with significantly lower time in Group 2 (P < 0.001). The closure times were 16.1 ± 6.1, 6.5 ± 1.2, and 5.3 ± 3.0 minutes, respectively, and significantly longer in the endoclip group (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the volumes and the incision sizes among the three groups. Conclusion: The combination of a submucosal tunnel access and OTSC offers a stronger closure than the other methods studied.

Description

Research Data

Keywords

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories