BACKGROUND: Gastric stimulation via high-frequency, low-energy pulses can provide an effective treatment for gastric dysmotility; however, the current commercially available device requires surgical implantation for long-term stimulation and is powered by a nonrechargeable battery. OBJECTIVE: To test and describe endoscopic implantation techniques and testing of stimulation of a novel, wireless, batteryless, gastric electrical stimulation (GES) device. DESIGN: Endoscopic gastric implantation techniques were implemented, and in vivo gastric signals were recorded and measured in a non-survival swine model (n = 2; 50-kg animals). INTERVENTION: Five novel endoscopic gastric implantation techniques and stimulation of a novel, wireless, batteryless, GES device were tested on a non-survival swine model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Feasibility of 5 new endoscopic gastric implantation techniques of the novel, miniature, batteryless, wireless GES device while recording and measurement of in vivo gastric signals. RESULTS: All 5 of the novel endoscopic techniques permitted insertion and securing of the miniaturized gastrostimulator. By the help of these methods and miniaturization of the gastrostimulator, successful GES could be provided without any surgery. The metallic clip attachment was restricted to the mucosal surface, whereas the prototype tacks, prototype spring coils, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy wires/T-tag fasteners, and submucosal pocket endoscopic implantation methods attach the stimulator near transmurally or transmurally to the stomach. They allow more secure device attachment with optimal stimulation depth. LIMITATIONS: Non-survival pig studies. CONCLUSION: These 5 techniques have the potential to augment the utility of GES as a treatment alternative, to provide an important prototype for other dysmotility treatment paradigms, and to yield insights for new technological interfaces between non-invasiveness and surgery.
BACKGROUND: Gastric stimulation via high-frequency, low-energy pulses can provide an effective treatment for gastric dysmotility; however, the current commercially available device requires surgical implantation for long-term stimulation and is powered by a nonrechargeable battery. OBJECTIVE: To test and describe endoscopic implantation techniques and testing of stimulation of a novel, wireless, batteryless, gastric electrical stimulation (GES) device. DESIGN: Endoscopic gastric implantation techniques were implemented, and in vivo gastric signals were recorded and measured in a non-survival swine model (n = 2; 50-kg animals). INTERVENTION: Five novel endoscopic gastric implantation techniques and stimulation of a novel, wireless, batteryless, GES device were tested on a non-survival swine model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Feasibility of 5 new endoscopic gastric implantation techniques of the novel, miniature, batteryless, wireless GES device while recording and measurement of in vivo gastric signals. RESULTS: All 5 of the novel endoscopic techniques permitted insertion and securing of the miniaturized gastrostimulator. By the help of these methods and miniaturization of the gastrostimulator, successful GES could be provided without any surgery. The metallic clip attachment was restricted to the mucosal surface, whereas the prototype tacks, prototype spring coils, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy wires/T-tag fasteners, and submucosal pocket endoscopic implantation methods attach the stimulator near transmurally or transmurally to the stomach. They allow more secure device attachment with optimal stimulation depth. LIMITATIONS: Non-survival pig studies. CONCLUSION: These 5 techniques have the potential to augment the utility of GES as a treatment alternative, to provide an important prototype for other dysmotility treatment paradigms, and to yield insights for new technological interfaces between non-invasiveness and surgery.
Authors: Thomas L Abell; William D Johnson; Archana Kedar; J Matthew Runnels; Janelle Thompson; Ernest S Weeks; Anil Minocha; Michael E Griswold Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Thomas Abell; Richard McCallum; Michael Hocking; Kenneth Koch; Hasse Abrahamsson; Isabelle Leblanc; Greger Lindberg; Jan Konturek; Thomas Nowak; Eammon M M Quigley; Gervais Tougas; Warren Starkebaum Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Yi-Kai Lo; Po-Min Wang; Genia Dubrovsky; Ming-Dao Wu; Michael Chan; James C Y Dunn; Wentai Liu Journal: Micromachines (Basel) Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 2.891