World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025
Comparison of a portable disposable large-channel gastroscope and a conventional reusable gastroscope in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhao Chen-Yi, Ning Bo, Feng Xiu-Xue, Li Hui-Kai, Zhang Wen-Gang, Dong Hao, Chai Ning-Li, Linghu En-Qiang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Conventional reusable endoscopes have high disinfection costs because of their large size. In this study, we compared the effectiveness, safety, and operation performance of the portable disposable large-channel endoscope that we developed with those of a conventional gastroscope in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).
AIM: To compare two gastroscopes in ESD for effectiveness and safety.
METHODS: Ten Bama pigs were subjected to gastroscopy and ESD after general anesthesia. The experiment was completed by four experienced endoscopists. First, two endoscopists randomly selected the portable disposable large-channel or conventional gastroscope to complete gastroscopy procedures. The other two endoscopists assessed the quality of endoscopic images. After endoscopy, all of the endoscopists randomly used the portable disposable large-channel endoscope or the conventional gastroscope for ESD. Endoscopic operation performance, submucosal dissection time, total procedure time, total submucosal injection volume, specimen size, success rate of en bloc resection, muscular injury rate, and complications were compared between the endoscopes.
RESULTS: No significant differences in gastroscopy duration or in the integrity, sharpness, saturation, and brightness of the gastroscopic images were observed between the gastroscopes. For ESD, no significant differences in endoscopic operation performance, incision time, submucosal dissection time, total procedure time, total submucosal injection volume, specimen size, or success rate of en bloc resection were observed between the gastroscopes. Neither gastroscope caused muscular injury or treatment-related complications.
CONCLUSION: The portable disposable large-channel endoscope can be used safely and effectively for gastroscopy and treatment.
AIM: To compare two gastroscopes in ESD for effectiveness and safety.
METHODS: Ten Bama pigs were subjected to gastroscopy and ESD after general anesthesia. The experiment was completed by four experienced endoscopists. First, two endoscopists randomly selected the portable disposable large-channel or conventional gastroscope to complete gastroscopy procedures. The other two endoscopists assessed the quality of endoscopic images. After endoscopy, all of the endoscopists randomly used the portable disposable large-channel endoscope or the conventional gastroscope for ESD. Endoscopic operation performance, submucosal dissection time, total procedure time, total submucosal injection volume, specimen size, success rate of en bloc resection, muscular injury rate, and complications were compared between the endoscopes.
RESULTS: No significant differences in gastroscopy duration or in the integrity, sharpness, saturation, and brightness of the gastroscopic images were observed between the gastroscopes. For ESD, no significant differences in endoscopic operation performance, incision time, submucosal dissection time, total procedure time, total submucosal injection volume, specimen size, or success rate of en bloc resection were observed between the gastroscopes. Neither gastroscope caused muscular injury or treatment-related complications.
CONCLUSION: The portable disposable large-channel endoscope can be used safely and effectively for gastroscopy and treatment.