Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023
Ultrathin endoscope equipped with ultrasonic miniprobe for upper GI US in a porcine model.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Pan Hanchao, Zhang Siyue, Lu Yongda, Han Zhile, Li Xinze, Li Zhangjian, Cui Yaoyao, Han Mei, Li Rui
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Ultrathin EGD (UT-EGD) is an ideal tool for unsedated upper GI examination and pediatric gastroenterology but is rarely competent for EUS miniprobe (EUS-MP). We developed a UT-EGD US method (UT-EUS) and verified its clinical application value through animal experiments.
METHODS: Five Bama miniature pigs were selected. Using an acoustic medium, we performed US on the duodenum, stomach, and esophagus, respectively, with conventional 20-MHz EUS miniprobe (EUS-MP-20), 20-MHz UT-EUS (UT-EUS-20), and 30-MHz UT-EUS (UT-EUS-30). The times to acquire 5 consecutive stable US images, number of identifiable wall layers, and quality and penetration depth of the images were recorded.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the time required to obtain images between EUS-MP-20 and UT-EUS-20 at each site (P > .05). UT-EUS-30 showed more wall levels than UT-EUS-20 (P < .05). No significant differences were noted between EUS-MP-20 and UT-EUS-20 in imaging quality and penetration depth (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The UT-EUS is easy to use with a satisfactory image quality and has potential clinical application value.
METHODS: Five Bama miniature pigs were selected. Using an acoustic medium, we performed US on the duodenum, stomach, and esophagus, respectively, with conventional 20-MHz EUS miniprobe (EUS-MP-20), 20-MHz UT-EUS (UT-EUS-20), and 30-MHz UT-EUS (UT-EUS-30). The times to acquire 5 consecutive stable US images, number of identifiable wall layers, and quality and penetration depth of the images were recorded.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the time required to obtain images between EUS-MP-20 and UT-EUS-20 at each site (P > .05). UT-EUS-30 showed more wall levels than UT-EUS-20 (P < .05). No significant differences were noted between EUS-MP-20 and UT-EUS-20 in imaging quality and penetration depth (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The UT-EUS is easy to use with a satisfactory image quality and has potential clinical application value.