PURPOSE: Although several studies have demonstrated the feasibility of transrectal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), its clinical application has been hindered by concerns regarding potential infectious complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a newly developed device for endolumenal colon occlusion (ColoShield) in an acute porcine model. METHODS: The principle of the ColoShield device is based on two balloons, with negative pressure in between. The ColoShield device and a gauze tamponade as a control group were evaluated in a non-survival study on 16 pigs. The efficacy of the occlusion system in establishing a leak-proof pneumorectum and in sealing the colon from proximal (watertight sealing) was tested by a standardized study course. Finally, the colon/rectum was explanted for macroscopic and microscopic examination. RESULTS: A 20-mmHg leak-proof pneumorectum over a period of 10 min could be achieved in seven of eight (87 %) animals with the ColoShield device and in none of eight (0 %) animals with gauze tamponade (p < 0.001). In the watertight sealing test, mean intracolonic pressures of 23.5 ± 18.1 (0-53) mmHg using the ColoShield device and 0 ± 1.1 (0-3) mmHg using gauze tamponade (p = 0.003) were documented proximal to the occlusion system before a leakage occurred. Macroscopic and histopathological examinations revealed no significant impairment of the colon specimen in either group. CONCLUSIONS: ColoShield proved to be a safe and effective device for a reversible endolumenal colon occlusion. Further studies should evaluate its impact on procedural sterility during transrectal NOTES.
PURPOSE: Although several studies have demonstrated the feasibility of transrectal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), its clinical application has been hindered by concerns regarding potential infectious complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a newly developed device for endolumenal colon occlusion (ColoShield) in an acute porcine model. METHODS: The principle of the ColoShield device is based on two balloons, with negative pressure in between. The ColoShield device and a gauze tamponade as a control group were evaluated in a non-survival study on 16 pigs. The efficacy of the occlusion system in establishing a leak-proof pneumorectum and in sealing the colon from proximal (watertight sealing) was tested by a standardized study course. Finally, the colon/rectum was explanted for macroscopic and microscopic examination. RESULTS: A 20-mmHg leak-proof pneumorectum over a period of 10 min could be achieved in seven of eight (87 %) animals with the ColoShield device and in none of eight (0 %) animals with gauze tamponade (p < 0.001). In the watertight sealing test, mean intracolonic pressures of 23.5 ± 18.1 (0-53) mmHg using the ColoShield device and 0 ± 1.1 (0-3) mmHg using gauze tamponade (p = 0.003) were documented proximal to the occlusion system before a leakage occurred. Macroscopic and histopathological examinations revealed no significant impairment of the colon specimen in either group. CONCLUSIONS: ColoShield proved to be a safe and effective device for a reversible endolumenal colon occlusion. Further studies should evaluate its impact on procedural sterility during transrectal NOTES.
Authors: Wassim M Bazzi; Oliver Wagner; Sean P Stroup; Jonathan L Silberstein; Noam Belkind; Toshio Katagiri; Julieta Paleari; Agustin Duro; Sonia Ramamoorthy; Mark A Talamini; Santiago Horgan; Ithaar H Derweesh Journal: Urology Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Elena Dubcenco; Teodor Grantcharov; Catherine J Streutker; Ori D Rotstein; Nancy N Baxter; Khursheed N Jeejeebhoy; Jeffrey P Baker Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: D Wilhelm; A Meining; S von Delius; A Fiolka; S Can; C Hann von Weyhern; A Schneider; H Feussner Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Philip C Müller; Jonas D Senft; Philip Gath; Daniel C Steinemann; Felix Nickel; Adrian T Billeter; Beat P Müller-Stich; Georg R Linke Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jonas D Senft; Benedict Carstensen; Alexander Mischnik; Rene Warschkow; Beat P Müller-Stich; Georg R Linke Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jonas D Senft; Philip Gath; Tilman Dröscher; Philip C Müller; Benedict Carstensen; Felix Nickel; Beat P Müller-Stich; Georg R Linke Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jonas D Senft; Tilman Dröscher; Philip Gath; Philip C Müller; Adrian Billeter; Beat P Müller-Stich; Georg R Linke Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Carolin Cordewener; Manuel Zürcher; Philip C Müller; Beat P Müller-Stich; Andreas Zerz; Georg R Linke; Daniel C Steinemann Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 4.584