BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically demanding. A viscous gel for submucosal lifting might induce mechanical submucosal dissection facilitating easier and safer ESD. METHODS: In 12 female pigs (median 64 kg), ESDs of simulated lesions were performed at the posterior wall and greater curvature in the gastric body (one ESD per location) with randomly assigned injection fluids: gel or control fluid (0.9% saline with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose 3 mg/ml [7:1] and indigo carmine droplets). Additionally, 10 cc gel was injected into the submucosa at the anterior wall without ESD to assess effects of inappropriate injection. Pigs were euthanized at day 0, 3 or 28. In four additional pigs (euthanized day 3 or 28) 10 cc gel was injected into the muscularis propria (MP) after four endoscopic mucosal resections in the gastric body. RESULTS: Both fluid groups showed equal ESD-procedure times (28 [gel] vs. 26 min [control]) and complications. Gel-ESDs required less accessory interchanges (3.5 vs. 5.5; p = 0.01). Mechanical dissection after circumferential incision was achieved in 25% of gel-ESDs; none in control-ESDs. The severity of inflammation and fibrosis was equal in both fluid groups. Normal architecture and vital mucosa were found after inappropriate submucosal injection. MP-injections resulted in one transmural hematoma (day 3), and intramuscular encapsulation in 25% of the sites (day 28). LIMITATIONS: A pig's stomach differs from the human stomach. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical dissection properties of the gel may reduce the need for submucosal dissection during ESD. The gel is safe when advertently injected in the submucosa and MP. The porcine model appeared suboptimal to evaluate the true mechanical dissection properties of the gel.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically demanding. A viscous gel for submucosal lifting might induce mechanical submucosal dissection facilitating easier and safer ESD. METHODS: In 12 female pigs (median 64 kg), ESDs of simulated lesions were performed at the posterior wall and greater curvature in the gastric body (one ESD per location) with randomly assigned injection fluids: gel or control fluid (0.9% saline with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose 3 mg/ml [7:1] and indigo carmine droplets). Additionally, 10 cc gel was injected into the submucosa at the anterior wall without ESD to assess effects of inappropriate injection. Pigs were euthanized at day 0, 3 or 28. In four additional pigs (euthanized day 3 or 28) 10 cc gel was injected into the muscularis propria (MP) after four endoscopic mucosal resections in the gastric body. RESULTS: Both fluid groups showed equal ESD-procedure times (28 [gel] vs. 26 min [control]) and complications. Gel-ESDs required less accessory interchanges (3.5 vs. 5.5; p = 0.01). Mechanical dissection after circumferential incision was achieved in 25% of gel-ESDs; none in control-ESDs. The severity of inflammation and fibrosis was equal in both fluid groups. Normal architecture and vital mucosa were found after inappropriate submucosal injection. MP-injections resulted in one transmural hematoma (day 3), and intramuscular encapsulation in 25% of the sites (day 28). LIMITATIONS: A pig's stomach differs from the human stomach. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical dissection properties of the gel may reduce the need for submucosal dissection during ESD. The gel is safe when advertently injected in the submucosa and MP. The porcine model appeared suboptimal to evaluate the true mechanical dissection properties of the gel.
Authors: M Fujishiro; N Yahagi; K Kashimura; Y Mizushima; M Oka; S Enomoto; N Kakushima; K Kobayashi; T Hashimoto; M Iguchi; Y Shimizu; M Ichinose; M Omata Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 10.093