Study of full-thickness endoluminal segmental resection of colon in a porcine colon model (with videos)
Background Entrapment injury of the adjacent bowel is frequently encountered during full-thickness endoluminal colon suction-resection. Objective Our purpose was to develop a technique that can create a full-thickness resection of the colon without the risk of entrapment injury to adjacent viscera....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2007-04, Vol.65 (4), p.696-702 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background Entrapment injury of the adjacent bowel is frequently encountered during full-thickness endoluminal colon suction-resection. Objective Our purpose was to develop a technique that can create a full-thickness resection of the colon without the risk of entrapment injury to adjacent viscera. Design Pilot study. Setting University medical center. Patients Five pigs. Interventions Traction-resection of the colon was created by using a grasping forceps to pull the colon into a band ligator loaded on a double-channel endoscope, followed by the application of a band, and subsequent snare resection (n = 14). Suction-resection of the colon was created by using a double-channel endoscope loaded with a band ligator (n = 12) and a single-channel endoscope with a band ligator (n = 6). Main Outcome Measurements Number of full-thickness colon resections, frequency of the adjacent bowel and mesenteric injury, and the size of the resections were measured. Results The suction-resection technique resulted in significant injury to adjacent viscera compared with the traction-resection technique (56% vs 0%, P = .0013). The traction-resection method resulted in a significantly larger resection compared with the suction-resection method (mean ± SEM: 2.91 ± 0.3 cm vs 2.1 ± 0.1 cm, P = .024). A double-channel endoscope suction-resection method resulted in a significantly larger resection compared with a single channel suction-resection technique (mean ± SEM: 2.1 ± 0.1 cm vs 0.91 ± 0.2 cm, P = .0022). Limitations None. Conclusions The traction-resection technique is safer than the suction-resection method in removing larger specimens of the colon. In addition, the traction-resection technique reduces the risk of injury of the mesentery or adjacent small intestine. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0016-5107 1097-6779 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.gie.2006.10.051 |