Surgical endoscopy · 2016
A comparison of two endoscopic closures: over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus KING closure (endoloop + clips) in a randomized long-term experimental study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Dolezel R, Ryska O, Kollar M, Juhasova J, Kalvach J, Ryska M, Martinek J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Both over-the-scope clip (OTSC) and KING (endoloop + clips) closures provide reliable and safe full-thickness endoscopic closure. Nevertheless, OTSC clip demonstrated significantly inferior histological healing in the short-term follow-up.
AIM: To compare OTSC versus KING closure of a perforation with regard to long-term effectiveness and macroscopic and histological quality of healing.
METHODS: We performed a randomized experimental study with 16 mini-pigs (mean weight 43.2 ± 11.2 kg). A standardized perforation was performed on the anterior sigmoid wall. KING closure (n = 8) was attained by approximation of an endoloop fixed to the margins of a perforation with endoclips. OTSC closure (n = 8) was performed by deploying OTSC (OVESCO) over the defect. Pigs underwent a control sigmoidoscopy 8 months after the closure to assess the macroscopic quality of healing. Then, autopsy was performed and the rectosigmoid was sent for histopathological assessment.
RESULTS: All closures were completed successfully without air leaks. The duration of closure was similar in both techniques (OTSC 17.8 ± 7.6 min vs. KING 19.6 ± 8.8 min). At autopsy, all KING closures (100 %) were healed with a flat scar without signs of leakage. Microscopically, no inflammatory changes were observed after KING closure. In the OTSC group, microscopic ulcers were present in two pigs (25 %), cryptal abscesses in three pigs (38 %) and significant neutrophil accumulation in all eight pigs (P < 0.01). Giant cell granulomas, dysplasia or abundant scarification was not observed in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both OTSC and KING closures offer a long-term reliable seal of a gastrointestinal perforation without stenosis or fistulas. KING closure provides long-term histologically superior healing.
AIM: To compare OTSC versus KING closure of a perforation with regard to long-term effectiveness and macroscopic and histological quality of healing.
METHODS: We performed a randomized experimental study with 16 mini-pigs (mean weight 43.2 ± 11.2 kg). A standardized perforation was performed on the anterior sigmoid wall. KING closure (n = 8) was attained by approximation of an endoloop fixed to the margins of a perforation with endoclips. OTSC closure (n = 8) was performed by deploying OTSC (OVESCO) over the defect. Pigs underwent a control sigmoidoscopy 8 months after the closure to assess the macroscopic quality of healing. Then, autopsy was performed and the rectosigmoid was sent for histopathological assessment.
RESULTS: All closures were completed successfully without air leaks. The duration of closure was similar in both techniques (OTSC 17.8 ± 7.6 min vs. KING 19.6 ± 8.8 min). At autopsy, all KING closures (100 %) were healed with a flat scar without signs of leakage. Microscopically, no inflammatory changes were observed after KING closure. In the OTSC group, microscopic ulcers were present in two pigs (25 %), cryptal abscesses in three pigs (38 %) and significant neutrophil accumulation in all eight pigs (P < 0.01). Giant cell granulomas, dysplasia or abundant scarification was not observed in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both OTSC and KING closures offer a long-term reliable seal of a gastrointestinal perforation without stenosis or fistulas. KING closure provides long-term histologically superior healing.