BACKGROUND: Reliable closure of the translumenal incision is one of the main challenges facing natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). This study aimed to evaluate the use of an automated flexible stapling device (SurgASSIST) for closure of the gastrotomy incision in a porcine model. METHODS: A double-channel gastroscope was advanced into the stomach. A gastric wall incision was made, and the endoscope was advanced into the peritoneal cavity. After peritoneoscopy, the endoscope was withdrawn into the stomach. The SurgASSIST stapler was advanced orally into the stomach. The gastrotomy edges were positioned between the opened stapler arms using two endoscopic grasping forceps. Stapler loads with and without a cutting blade were used for gastric closure. After firing of the stapler to close the gastric wall incision, x-ray with contrast was performed to assess for gastric leakage. At the end of the procedure, the animals were killed for a study of closure adequacy. RESULTS: Four acute animal experiments were performed. The delivery and positioning of the stapler were achieved, with technical difficulties mostly due to a short working length (60 cm) of the device. Firing of the staple delivered four rows of staples. Postmortem examination of pig 1 (when a cutting blade was used) demonstrated full-thickness closure of the gastric wall incision, but the cutting blade caused a transmural hole right at the end of the staple line. For this reason, we stopped using stapler loads with a cutting blade. In the three remaining animals (pigs 2-4), we were able to achieve a full-thickness closure of the gastric wall incision without any complications. CONCLUSIONS: The flexible stapling device may provide a simple and reliable technique for lumenal closure after NOTES procedures. Further survival studies are currently under way to evaluate the long-term efficacy of gastric closure with the stapler after intraperitoneal interventions.
BACKGROUND: Reliable closure of the translumenal incision is one of the main challenges facing natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). This study aimed to evaluate the use of an automated flexible stapling device (SurgASSIST) for closure of the gastrotomy incision in a porcine model. METHODS: A double-channel gastroscope was advanced into the stomach. A gastric wall incision was made, and the endoscope was advanced into the peritoneal cavity. After peritoneoscopy, the endoscope was withdrawn into the stomach. The SurgASSIST stapler was advanced orally into the stomach. The gastrotomy edges were positioned between the opened stapler arms using two endoscopic grasping forceps. Stapler loads with and without a cutting blade were used for gastric closure. After firing of the stapler to close the gastric wall incision, x-ray with contrast was performed to assess for gastric leakage. At the end of the procedure, the animals were killed for a study of closure adequacy. RESULTS: Four acute animal experiments were performed. The delivery and positioning of the stapler were achieved, with technical difficulties mostly due to a short working length (60 cm) of the device. Firing of the staple delivered four rows of staples. Postmortem examination of pig 1 (when a cutting blade was used) demonstrated full-thickness closure of the gastric wall incision, but the cutting blade caused a transmural hole right at the end of the staple line. For this reason, we stopped using stapler loads with a cutting blade. In the three remaining animals (pigs 2-4), we were able to achieve a full-thickness closure of the gastric wall incision without any complications. CONCLUSIONS: The flexible stapling device may provide a simple and reliable technique for lumenal closure after NOTES procedures. Further survival studies are currently under way to evaluate the long-term efficacy of gastric closure with the stapler after intraperitoneal interventions.
Authors: Estevao Lima; Carla Rolanda; José M Pêgo; Tiago Henriques-Coelho; David Silva; José L Carvalho; Jorge Correia-Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sergey V Kantsevoy; Sanjay B Jagannath; Hideaki Niiyama; Nina V Isakovich; Sydney S C Chung; Peter B Cotton; Christopher J Gostout; Robert H Hawes; Pankaj J Pasricha; Anthony N Kalloo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: R Onders; M F McGee; J Marks; A Chak; R Schilz; M J Rosen; A Ignagni; A Faulx; M J Elmo; S Schomisch; J Ponsky Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-12-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Keiichi Ikeda; C Alexander Mosse; Per-Ola Park; Annette Fritscher-Ravens; Maria Bergström; Tim Mills; Hisao Tajiri; C Paul Swain Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: O Meireles; S V Kantsevoy; A N Kalloo; S B Jagannath; S A Giday; P Magno; S P Shih; E J Hanly; C-W Ko; D M Beitler; M R Marohn Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-04-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Eduardo M Targarona; Jose Luis Pallares; Carmen Balague; Carlos Rodríguez Luppi; Franco Marinello; Pilar Hernández; Carmen Martínez; Manuel Trias Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sheetal Nijhawan; Juan S Barajas-Gamboa; Saniea Majid; Garth R Jacobsen; Michael F Sedrak; Bryan J Sandler; Mark A Talamini; Santiago Horgan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 4.584