| Literature DB >> 28321165 |
Wen-Gang Zhang1, En-Qiang Linghu1, Hui-Kai Li1.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of fibrin sealant for closure of mucosal penetration at the cardia during peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).Entities:
Keywords: Efficacy; Fibrin sealant; Mucosal penetration; Peroral endoscopic myotomy; Safety
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28321165 PMCID: PMC5340816 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i9.1637
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Figure 1Closure of the mucosal penetration using fibrin sealant. A: Spraying fibrin sealant in the submucosal tunnel; B: Fibrin sealant fully covers the penetration (imaging from esophageal lumen); C: Fibrin sealant fully covers the penetration (imaging from stomach lumen).
Figure 2Closure of a 0.8 cm × 0.4 cm mucosal penetration using a hemostatic clip and fibrin sealant. A: The appearance of the 0.8 cm × 0.4 cm mucosal penetration (imaging from the submucosal tunnel); B: A hemostatic clip was used to make a preliminary clipping (imaging from esophageal lumen); C: Fibrin sealant fully covers the preliminary clipped penetration (imaging from stomach lumen).
Clinical characteristics and procedure-related parameters for 21 consecutive patients who experienced mucosal penetration during peroral endoscopic myotomy procedure
| Patient characteristics | |
| Sex, female/male ( | 12/9 |
| Age (yr), mean (range) | 38.0 (15-64) |
| Symptom duration (mo), median (range) | 26.0 (10-360) |
| Previous treatment ( | |
| Botox injection | 3 |
| Bouginage | 1 |
| Chicago classification ( | |
| Type I | 2 |
| Type II | 18 |
| Type III | 1 |
| Procedure-related parameters | |
| Procedure time (min.), median (range) | 58.9 (20.0-141.0) |
| Tunnel length (cm), mean (range) | 11.7 (7-18) |
| Myotomy length (cm), mean (range) | 5.6 (3-10) |
| Myotomy type ( | |
| Inner circular muscle myotomy | 10 |
| Full-thickness myotomy | 1 |
| Glasses-style anti-reflux myotomy | 1 |
| Progressive full-thickness myotomy | 9 |
Characteristics of the 21 mucosal penetrations and the treatment outcomes using fibrin sealant
| Penetration shape, | |
| Hole-like penetration | 12 (57.1) |
| Linear penetration | 9 (42.9) |
| Penetration location | |
| Esophageal part of cardia | 12 (61.9) |
| Stomach part of cardia | 8 (38.1) |
| Both esophageal and stomach parts of cardia | 1 (4.8) |
| Penetration size | |
| Hole like penetration (cm2), mean (range) | 0.14 (0.02-0.32) |
| Linear penetration (cm), median (range) | 0.37 (0.10-1.00) |
| Consumed fibrin sealant amount ( | |
| 5.0 mL | 3 |
| 2.5 mL | 18 |
| Postoperative treatment | |
| Placement of nasogastric tube ( | 2 |
| Postoperative stay (d), median (range) | 5 (5-7) |
Figure 3Two kinds of mucosal penetration under esophagogastroduodenoscopy. A: Hole-like penetration (imaging from submucosal tunnel); B: Hole-like penetration (imaging from esophageal lumen); C: Linear penetration (imaging from esophageal lumen).
Figure 4Healing process of the mucosal penetration after being closed using fibrin sealant. A: The appearance of penetration at one week after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) (imaging from esophageal lumen); B: The appearance of penetration at six weeks after POEM (imaging from esophageal lumen).
Detailed data of the mucosal penetrations from all 21 patients
| 1 | Hole like | GOC | 0.4 × 0.4 | NG tube | 7 | 5 | Slight abdominal pain |
| 2 | Hole like | GOC | 0.4 × 0.5 | NG tube | 7 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 3 | Hole like | GOC | 0.3 × 0.2 | Fasting | 7 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 4 | Linear | EOC | 0.3 | Fasting | 7 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 5 | Hole like | EOC | 0.4 × 0.3 | Fasting | 7 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 6 | Linear | EOC | 0.3 | Fasting | 6 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 7 | Linear | EOC | 0.1 | Fasting | 6 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 8 | Linear | GOC | 0.4 | Fasting | 6 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 9 | Linear | GOC | 0.4 | Fasting | 6 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 10 | Hole like | EOC | 0.3 × 0.2 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 11 | Linear | EOC | 0.2 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 12 | Hole like | EOC | 0.2 × 0.2 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 13 | Linear | BOC | 1.0 | Fasting | 5 | 5 | Normal |
| 14 | Hole like | EOC | 0.8 × 0.4 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 (one hemostatic clip) | Normal |
| 15 | Linear | EOC | 0.3 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 16 | Hole like | GOC | 0.5 × 0.5 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 17 | Hole like | EOC | 0.4 × 0.4 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 18 | Hole like | GOC | 0.3 × 0.3 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 19 | Hole like | EOC | 0.4 × 0.4 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 20 | Linear | GOC | 0.3 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 | Normal |
| 21 | Hole like | EOC | 0.1 × 0.2 | Fasting | 5 | 2.5 | Normal |
NG tube: Nasogastric tube; GOC: Gastric part of the cardia; EOC: Esophageal part of the cardia; BOC: Both gastric and esophageal parts of the cardia.
Symptom relief, manometry outcomes, and reflux complications of the 21 patients who experienced mucosal penetration during peroral endoscopic myotomy
| Follow-up period (mo), median (range) | 42.0 (9-62) |
| Symptom relief | |
| Eckardt score, median (range) | |
| Pre-treatment | 5.0 (4-10) |
| Post-treatment | 1.0 (0-4) |
| Pre/post-treatment difference value | 4.8 (1-9) |
| Treatment success (Eckardt score | 20 (95.2) |
| Manometry outcomes | |
| Manometry follow-up rate, | 15 (71.4) |
| LESP (mmHg), median (range) | |
| Pre-treatment | 31.9 (21.9-67.1) |
| Post-treatment | 20.3 (6.0-41.0) |
| Pre/post-treatment difference value | 14.1 (9.6-35.2) |
| Post-POEM esophagitis on EGD | |
| LA-A | 1 |
| LA-B | 2 |
| Overall, | 3 (14.3) |
| Gas-related complications, | |
| Pneumothorax | 1 |
| Pneumoperitoneum | 1 |
| Pneumomediastinum | 1 |
| Overall | 3 |
POEM: Peroral endoscopic myotomy; EGD: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy; LA-A: Los Angeles classification A; LA-B: Los Angeles classification B; LESP: Lower esophageal sphincter pressure.