R Dolezel1, O Ryska2, M Kollar3, J Juhasova4, J Kalvach5, M Ryska5, J Martinek6,7. 1. Surgical Clinic, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. dolezrad@uvn.cz. 2. Surgery Department, Horovice Hospital, Horovice, Czech Republic. 3. Department of Pathology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. 4. Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics, AS CR, v.v.i., Libechov, Czech Republic. 5. Surgical Clinic, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. 6. Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz. 7. Department of Clinical Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both over-the-scope clip (OTSC) and KING (endoloop + clips) closures provide reliable and safe full-thickness endoscopic closure. Nevertheless, OTSC clip demonstrated significantly inferior histological healing in the short-term follow-up. AIM: To compare OTSC versus KING closure of a perforation with regard to long-term effectiveness and macroscopic and histological quality of healing. METHODS: We performed a randomized experimental study with 16 mini-pigs (mean weight 43.2 ± 11.2 kg). A standardized perforation was performed on the anterior sigmoid wall. KING closure (n = 8) was attained by approximation of an endoloop fixed to the margins of a perforation with endoclips. OTSC closure (n = 8) was performed by deploying OTSC (OVESCO) over the defect. Pigs underwent a control sigmoidoscopy 8 months after the closure to assess the macroscopic quality of healing. Then, autopsy was performed and the rectosigmoid was sent for histopathological assessment. RESULTS: All closures were completed successfully without air leaks. The duration of closure was similar in both techniques (OTSC 17.8 ± 7.6 min vs. KING 19.6 ± 8.8 min). At autopsy, all KING closures (100 %) were healed with a flat scar without signs of leakage. Microscopically, no inflammatory changes were observed after KING closure. In the OTSC group, microscopic ulcers were present in two pigs (25 %), cryptal abscesses in three pigs (38 %) and significant neutrophil accumulation in all eight pigs (P < 0.01). Giant cell granulomas, dysplasia or abundant scarification was not observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Both OTSC and KING closures offer a long-term reliable seal of a gastrointestinal perforation without stenosis or fistulas. KING closure provides long-term histologically superior healing.
BACKGROUND: Both over-the-scope clip (OTSC) and KING (endoloop + clips) closures provide reliable and safe full-thickness endoscopic closure. Nevertheless, OTSC clip demonstrated significantly inferior histological healing in the short-term follow-up. AIM: To compare OTSC versus KING closure of a perforation with regard to long-term effectiveness and macroscopic and histological quality of healing. METHODS: We performed a randomized experimental study with 16 mini-pigs (mean weight 43.2 ± 11.2 kg). A standardized perforation was performed on the anterior sigmoid wall. KING closure (n = 8) was attained by approximation of an endoloop fixed to the margins of a perforation with endoclips. OTSC closure (n = 8) was performed by deploying OTSC (OVESCO) over the defect. Pigs underwent a control sigmoidoscopy 8 months after the closure to assess the macroscopic quality of healing. Then, autopsy was performed and the rectosigmoid was sent for histopathological assessment. RESULTS: All closures were completed successfully without air leaks. The duration of closure was similar in both techniques (OTSC 17.8 ± 7.6 min vs. KING 19.6 ± 8.8 min). At autopsy, all KING closures (100 %) were healed with a flat scar without signs of leakage. Microscopically, no inflammatory changes were observed after KING closure. In the OTSC group, microscopic ulcers were present in two pigs (25 %), cryptal abscesses in three pigs (38 %) and significant neutrophil accumulation in all eight pigs (P < 0.01). Giant cell granulomas, dysplasia or abundant scarification was not observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Both OTSC and KING closures offer a long-term reliable seal of a gastrointestinal perforation without stenosis or fistulas. KING closure provides long-term histologically superior healing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Endoscopic closure; KING closure; NOTES; Over-the-scope clip (OTSC)
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: Timo Weiland; Marion Fehlker; Thomas Gottwald; Marc O Schurr Journal: Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 2.442
Authors: Jasmine C Mathews; Michael S Chin; Gloria Fernandez-Esparrach; Sohail N Shaikh; Giorgio Pietramaggiori; Sandra S Scherer; Michele B Ryan; Massimo Ferrigno; Dennis P Orgill; Christopher C Thompson Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Tessa Verlaan; Rogier P Voermans; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Willem A Bemelman; Paul Fockens Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-05-21 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: Gregorios A Paspatis; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Marc Barthet; Søren Meisner; Alessandro Repici; Brian P Saunders; Antonios Vezakis; Jean Michel Gonzalez; Stine Ydegaard Turino; Zacharias P Tsiamoulos; Paul Fockens; Cesare Hassan Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 10.093