BACKGROUND: A safe technique is essential for successful access site closure in Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) and for closures of iatrogenic perforations. AIM: To compare an over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus an endoloop + endoclips closure technique (KING closure). METHODS: 40 minipigs underwent NOTES peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy. Gastrotomies and rectotomies were closed with OTSC (n = 20; 10× stomach, 10× rectum) or KING closure (n = 20; 10× stomach, 10× rectum). The animals were euthanized 28 days after the procedure. The main outcome variables were technical feasibility, effectiveness, and healing. RESULTS: Stomach: All but one closure (KING) was successfully completed. The times of closure were similar between the techniques. At necropsy, all access sites were healed. In two animals (1× KING, 1× OTSC), an abscess, probably related to the closure technique, was found. Histologically, transmural healing with muscular bridging was observable in nine pigs for KING versus two pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.003). Inflammation was present in three pigs for KING versus seven pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.08). Rectum: All closures were successfully completed. The times of closure were similar between the techniques. At necropsy, all closure sites had healed. Transmural healing with muscular bridging was present in nine pigs for KING versus two pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.003). Inflammation was present in two pigs for KING versus seven pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.03). In one animal (OTSC), an enterocolic fistula developed in the proximity of the closure site. CONCLUSIONS: OTSC and KING closure are comparable closure techniques in terms of technical feasibility and effectiveness. KING closure provides a superior histological outcome compared with OTSC closure.
BACKGROUND: A safe technique is essential for successful access site closure in Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) and for closures of iatrogenic perforations. AIM: To compare an over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus an endoloop + endoclips closure technique (KING closure). METHODS: 40 minipigs underwent NOTES peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy. Gastrotomies and rectotomies were closed with OTSC (n = 20; 10× stomach, 10× rectum) or KING closure (n = 20; 10× stomach, 10× rectum). The animals were euthanized 28 days after the procedure. The main outcome variables were technical feasibility, effectiveness, and healing. RESULTS: Stomach: All but one closure (KING) was successfully completed. The times of closure were similar between the techniques. At necropsy, all access sites were healed. In two animals (1× KING, 1× OTSC), an abscess, probably related to the closure technique, was found. Histologically, transmural healing with muscular bridging was observable in nine pigs for KING versus two pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.003). Inflammation was present in three pigs for KING versus seven pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.08). Rectum: All closures were successfully completed. The times of closure were similar between the techniques. At necropsy, all closure sites had healed. Transmural healing with muscular bridging was present in nine pigs for KING versus two pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.003). Inflammation was present in two pigs for KING versus seven pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.03). In one animal (OTSC), an enterocolic fistula developed in the proximity of the closure site. CONCLUSIONS: OTSC and KING closure are comparable closure techniques in terms of technical feasibility and effectiveness. KING closure provides a superior histological outcome compared with OTSC closure.
Authors: Anders Meller Donatsky; Luise Andersen; Ole Lerberg Nielsen; Barbara Juliane Holzknecht; Peter Vilmann; Søren Meisner; Lars Nannestad Jørgensen; Jacob Rosenberg Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Xavier Dray; Devi M Krishnamurty; Gianfranko Donatelli; Kathleen L Gabrielson; Ronald J Wroblewski; Eun J Shin; Samuel A Giday; Jonathan M Buscaglia; Laurie J Pipitone; Michael R Marohn; Anthony N Kalloo; Sergey V Kantsevoy Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Tomas Hucl; Marek Benes; Matej Kocik; Martin Krak; Jana Maluskova; Eva Kieslichova; Martin Oliverius; Julius Spicak Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-02-18 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Hong Man Yoon; Chan Gyoo Kim; Jong Yeul Lee; Soo-Jeong Cho; Myeong-Cherl Kook; Bang Wool Eom; Keun Won Ryu; Young-Woo Kim; Il Ju Choi Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Tomas Hucl; Marek Benes; Matej Kocik; Alla Splichalova; Jana Maluskova; Martin Krak; Vera Lanska; Marie Heczkova; Eva Kieslichova; Martin Oliverius; Julius Spicak Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 2.260