Literature DB >> 18294513

Optimizing bipolar electrocoagulation for endoscopic hemostasis: assessment of factors influencing energy delivery and coagulation.

Loren Laine1, Gary L Long, Gregory J Bakos, Omar J Vakharia, Christie Cunningham.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few data inform decisions on the optimal bipolar electrocoagulation (BPEC) technique.
OBJECTIVES: To assess how technical factors influence energy delivery and coagulation.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study in experimental models: meat, live pig mesenteric arteries.
INTERVENTIONS: Standard and prototype BPEC probes were applied at varying durations (2, 10, and 20 seconds), application forces (5, 75, and 150 g), and watt settings (10, 15, and 20 W). BPEC devices were applied to arteries with 40 g versus no additional force. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: For the meat model: energy delivered, impedance, coagulation and cavitation depth, and coagulation surface area. For the mesenteric arteries: hemostasis.
RESULTS: The energy delivered increased with duration and force (P < .001) but not with the watt setting. Impedance rose rapidly at higher watt settings (>300 ohms within approximately 5 seconds at 20 W and approximately 10 seconds at 15 W), with a coincident drop in power. Coagulation depth and surface area correlated with energy delivered (r = 0.70-0.97). Only duration was associated with the coagulation depth (P < .001); cavitation (which occurred with a standard BPEC probe) plus coagulation depth was also associated with application force (P < .001). Hemostasis of the mesenteric arteries was achieved only with 40 g of force. LIMITATIONS: The accuracy of these models in predicting clinical results is uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS: Increasing BPEC duration increased the energy delivered and the coagulation, whereas increasing the watt setting did not because of a rapid rise in impedance. Optimal BPEC technique included a lower watt setting (eg, 15 W), a longer duration (eg, approximately 10-12 seconds), and tamponade of the bleeding site.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18294513     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.09.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  7 in total

Review 1.  What Does Lesion Blood Flow Tell Us About Risk Stratification and Successful Management of Non-variceal UGI Bleeding?

Authors:  Kevin A Ghassemi; Dennis M Jensen
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2017-04

2.  Comparison of the efficacy of two combined therapies for peptic ulcer bleeding: adrenaline injection plus haemoclipping versus adrenaline injection followed by bipolar electrocoagulation.

Authors:  Agnieszka Świdnicka-Siergiejko; Mariusz Rosołowski; Eugeniusz Wróblewski; Andrzej Baniukiewicz; Andrzej Dąbrowski
Journal:  Prz Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-30

3.  Sealing vessels up to 7 mm in diameter solely with ultrasonic technology.

Authors:  Richard W Timm; Ryan M Asher; Karalyn R Tellio; Alissa L Welling; Jeffrey W Clymer; Joseph F Amaral
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2014-07-30

Review 4.  Evolving techniques for gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis treatment.

Authors:  Kevin A Ghassemi; Dennis M Jensen
Journal:  Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.869

5.  Novel concave-convex electrode for colonic anastomoses by radiofrequency thermo-fusion.

Authors:  Lingxi Zhao; Chengli Song; Zhigang Wang; Yu Zhou; Xinxiang Li; Wei Zhu; Alfred Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-10-11       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  State-of-the-art management of acute bleeding peptic ulcer disease.

Authors:  Hisham Al Dhahab; Julia McNabb-Baltar; Talal Al-Taweel; Alan Barkun
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.485

7.  Large-Vessel Sealing in Laparoscopic Colectomy with an Ultrasonic Device.

Authors:  Gustavo Plasencia; Kurt Van der Speeten; Piet Hinoul; Jennifer A Kelch; Jonathan Batiller; Kimberley S Severin; Michael L Schwiers; Tim Rockall
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.