| Literature DB >> 34079871 |
Benjamin Walter1, Yannick S Krieger2, Dirk Wilhelm3, Hubertus Feussner3, Tim C Lueth2, Alexander Meining4.
Abstract
Background and study aims A major drawback of endoscopic en-bloc resection technique is its inability to perform bimanual tasks. Although endoscopic platforms that enable bimanual tasks are commercially available, they are neither approved for various locations nor adaptable to specific patients and indications. Methods Based on evolution of an adaptive 3D-printable platform concept, system variants with different characteristic properties were evaluated for ESD scenarios, ex-vivo in two locations in the stomach and colorectum. Results In total 28 ESDs were performed (7 antrum, 7 corpus in inversion, 7 cecum, 7 rectum) in a porcine ex-vivo setup. ESD was feasible in 21 cases. Investigated manipulator variants are differently well suited for performing ESD within the varying interventions scenarios. Dual-arm manipulators allowed autonomous ESD, while single-arm flexible manipulators could be used more universally due to their compact design, especially for lesions difficult to access. Pediatric scopes were too frail to guide the overtube-manipulators in extremely angled positions. Working in the rectum was impaired using long-sized manipulator arms. Conclusions The presented endoscopic platform based on 3D-printable and customizable manipulator structures might be a promising approach for future improvement of ESD procedure. With regard to localization, especially flexible manipulators attached to standard endoscopes appear to be most promising for further application of specific and individualised manipulator systems. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34079871 PMCID: PMC8159599 DOI: 10.1055/a-1395-7089
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1Dual-arm manipulators.
Fig. 2Single-arm manipulators.
Fig. 3Behind-the-tip mounted and tip-mounted single-arm manipulators.
Results of standard and enhanced ESD in an ex-vivo model in the upper gastrointestinal tract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Antrum | Standard | Standard | n/a | Y | 22.25 | 0.32 | None |
| Overtube | Standard | 1 | Y | 13.26 | 0.53 | None | |
| Overtube | Pediatric | 2 | Y | 13.43 | 0.53 | None | |
| Overtube | Standard | 2 | Y | 27.32 | 0.26 | None | |
| Overtube | Pediatric | 1 | Y | 23.17 | 0.31 | None | |
| Tip mounted | Standard | 1 | Y | 9.83 | 0.72 | None | |
| Behind tip mounted | Standard | 1 | Y | 18.58 | 0.38 | None | |
| Corpus | Standard | Standard | n/a | Y | 14.72 | 0.48 | None |
| Overtube | Standard | 1 | N | n/a | n/a | Restricted arm movement | |
| Overtube | Pediatric | 2 | N | n/a | n/a | Endoscope too fragile | |
| Overtube | Standard | 2 | N | n/a | n/a | Restricted arm movement | |
| Overtube | Pediatric | 1 | N | n/a | n/a | Endoscope too frail | |
| Tip mounted | Standard | 1 | Y | 7.25 | 0.98 | None | |
| Behind tip mounted | Standard | 1 | Y | 19.17 | 0.37 | None |
t; Technique: Standard = standard endoscopic submucosal resection; Endoscope: Standard: Olympus GIF HQ 160; Pediatric: Olympus GIF XP160N. The outer diameters of the single-arm overtube systems were 15.5 mm x15 mm for standard and 11.5 mm x 11 mm for pediatric gastroscope; for the dual-arm systems, 20 mm x 15 mm using standard and 16 mm x11 mm using pediatric gastroscope; the outer contour measured 14.5 mm x 10.5 mm for tip-mounted and behind-the-tip-mounted single-arm manipulator. Resection Time: Time needed for submucosal injection, incision and complete resection of premarked specimen.
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; Y, yes; N, no; n/a, not applicable.
Results for standard and enhanced ESD in ex-vivo model in the lower gastrointestinal tract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cecum | Standard | Standard | n/a | Y | 22.5 | 0.31 | None |
| Overtube | Standard | 1 | Y | 35.0 | 0.20 | None | |
| Overtube | Pediatric | 2 | N | n/a | n/a | Endoscope too frail | |
| Overtube | Standard | 2 | Y | 9.12 | 0.78 | None | |
| Overtube | Pediatric | 1 | N | n/a | n/a | Endoscope too fragile | |
| Tip mounted | Standard | 1 | Y | 6.33 | 1.12 | None | |
| Behind tip mounted | Standard | 1 | Y | 12.85 | 0.55 | None | |
| Rectum | Standard | Standard | n/a | Y | 16.38 | 0.43 | None |
| Overtube | Standard | 1 | Y | 18.87 | 0.37 | None | |
| Overtube | Pediatric | 2 | Y | 31.67 | 0.22 | None | |
| Overtube | Standard | 2 | Y | 21.93 | 0.32 | None | |
| Overtube | Pediatric | 1 | Y | 12.42 | 0.57 | None | |
| Tip mounted | Standard | 1 | Y | 22.02 | 0.32 | None | |
| Behind tip mounted | Standard | 1 | N | n/a | n/a | Restricted arm movement |
Technique: Standard = standard endoscopic submucosal resection. Endoscope: Standard: Olympus GIF HQ 160; Pediatric: Olympus GIF XP160N. The outer diameters of the single-arm overtube systems were 15.5 mm × 15 mm for standard and 11.5 mm × 11 mm for pediatric gastroscope; for the dual-arm systems, 20 mm × 15 mm using standard and 16 mm × 11 mm using pediatric gastroscope. The outer contour measured 14.5 mm × 10.5 mm for tip-mounted and behind-the-tip-mounted single-arm manipulator. Resection time: Time needed for submucosal injection, incision and complete resection of premarked specimen. ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; Y, yes; N, no; n/a, not applicable.
Fig. 4Comparison of standard ESD, overtube-enhanced ESD, and tip/behind-tip mounted resection regarding resection speed.