BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) requires a reliable full-thickness suturing device and an endoscopic counter-traction device to prevent the collapse of the digestive tract. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to assess the reliability of newly developed flexible endoscopy suturing devices and the feasibility of pure EFTR. METHODS: A total of 30 EFTRs were performed and allocated to three groups (N = 10 for each group). The full-thickness sutures were placed using over-the-scope clips (OTSCs), hand-sewn sutures, or the Double-arm-bar Suturing System (DBSS). Air leak tests were conducted in the three groups. The times required for the placement of one OTSC suture and single-stitch simple interrupted sutures (hand-sewn and DBSS sutures, respectively) were also compared. RESULTS: All 30 full-thickness sutures were completely and successfully placed. Regarding the air leak tests, the Mann-Whitney U test showed significant differences between OTSC and hand-sewn sutures (p = 0.003). There was also a significant difference between OTSC and DBSS sutures (p = 0.023). There was no significant difference between hand-sewn and DBSS sutures (p = 0.542). A significant difference was found in the suture time for single-stitch simple interrupted sutures among the OTSC, hand-sewn, and DBSS sutures. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed a significant difference between OTSC and hand-sewn sutures (p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference between OTSC and DBSS sutures (p = 0.533), while a significant difference was found between hand-sewn and DBSS sutures (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pure EFTR is feasible if the mechanical counter traction system is used to expand a small operative field and DBSS is used to make full-thickness sutures. The high safety of full-thickness resection and full-thickness suturing allows for clinical applications of this method.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) requires a reliable full-thickness suturing device and an endoscopic counter-traction device to prevent the collapse of the digestive tract. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to assess the reliability of newly developed flexible endoscopy suturing devices and the feasibility of pure EFTR. METHODS: A total of 30 EFTRs were performed and allocated to three groups (N = 10 for each group). The full-thickness sutures were placed using over-the-scope clips (OTSCs), hand-sewn sutures, or the Double-arm-bar Suturing System (DBSS). Air leak tests were conducted in the three groups. The times required for the placement of one OTSC suture and single-stitch simple interrupted sutures (hand-sewn and DBSS sutures, respectively) were also compared. RESULTS: All 30 full-thickness sutures were completely and successfully placed. Regarding the air leak tests, the Mann-Whitney U test showed significant differences between OTSC and hand-sewn sutures (p = 0.003). There was also a significant difference between OTSC and DBSS sutures (p = 0.023). There was no significant difference between hand-sewn and DBSS sutures (p = 0.542). A significant difference was found in the suture time for single-stitch simple interrupted sutures among the OTSC, hand-sewn, and DBSS sutures. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed a significant difference between OTSC and hand-sewn sutures (p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference between OTSC and DBSS sutures (p = 0.533), while a significant difference was found between hand-sewn and DBSS sutures (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pure EFTR is feasible if the mechanical counter traction system is used to expand a small operative field and DBSS is used to make full-thickness sutures. The high safety of full-thickness resection and full-thickness suturing allows for clinical applications of this method.
Authors: Anthony N Kalloo; Vikesh K Singh; Sanjay B Jagannath; Hideaki Niiyama; Susan L Hill; Cheryl A Vaughn; Carolyn A Magee; Sergey V Kantsevoy Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Xavier Dray; Kathleen L Gabrielson; Jonathan M Buscaglia; Eun Ji Shin; Samuel A Giday; Vihar C Surti; Lia Assumpcao; Michael R Marohn; Priscilla Magno; Laurie J Pipitone; Susan K Redding; Anthony N Kalloo; Sergey V Kantsevoy Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-04-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Justin P Isariyawongse; Michael F McGee; Michael J Rosen; Edward E Cherullo; Lee E Ponsky Journal: J Endourol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: H Mori; H Kobara; M Kobayashi; A Muramatsu; T Nomura; M Hagiike; K Izuishi; Y Suzuki; T Masaki Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: H Yamamoto; H Kawata; K Sunada; A Sasaki; K Nakazawa; T Miyata; Y Sekine; T Yano; K Satoh; K Ido; K Sugano Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Vincent Huberty; Loulia Leclercq; Martin Hiernaux; Laurine Verset; Charlotte Sandersen; Thorsten Beyna; Horst Neuhaus; Jacques Deviere Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2019-10-22