Literature DB >> 34917461

Single-use Albarran module: A removable elevator system to enhance safety in biliary endoscopy?

Clara Benedetta Conti1, Roberto Frego1, Alessandro Ettore Redaelli1, Marta Maino1, Giacomo Mulinacci1, Marco Emilio Dinelli1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34917461      PMCID: PMC8671002          DOI: 10.1055/a-1629-1221

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endosc Int Open        ISSN: 2196-9736


× No keyword cloud information.
Bacterial infections are a major burden in biliary endoscopy. Besides incomplete manual cleaning of endoscopes, hard-to-clean components of duodenoscopes are responsible for a substantial rate of bacterial contamination. A large meta-analysis showed that 15 % of duodenoscopes harbored microorganisms of gastrointestinal or oral origin, independent from the colony forming unit (CFU) count. This indicates that the current reprocessing and process control procedures, even with ethylene oxide (ETO), could be insufficient 1 . Therefore, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings led companies to redesign duodenoscopes with the aim of enhancing safety. Disposable caps or caps + elevator are available options on the market 2 3 . Moreover, two disposable duodenoscopes models have recently been approved by the FDA: the Boston Scientifc EXALT Model D and the Ambu A/S Ambu aScope Duodeno. Studies on disposable duodenoscope feasibility and possible economic impact on the market yielded interesting results, although the data are still preliminary 4 5 6 7 8 . In this paper, we present an innovative solution of a duodenoscope with a removable cap, wire, and distal lever mechanism. This elevator system is called the single-use Albarran module (Karl Storz) ( Fig. 1 ). With it, a large, open surface can be created that is easy to brush and clean, as is the case with any other instrument without a bifurcated channel. Basically, the module is assembled and removed before and after every procedure, to be reprocessed separately from the rest of the duodenoscope (even with ETO). Interestingly, the distal end of the duodenoscope belongs to the removable module ( Fig. 2 ). This detail makes the cleaning both the channel and the tip easier. Karl Storz conducted some tests on duodenoscopes contaminated with organic fluids, such as blood. After removal of the single-use Albarran module and duodenoscope reprocessing, the instruments achieved the officially required level of cleaning (i. e. < 6.4 μg/cm 2 for protein, < 2.4 μg/cm 2 for hemoglobin and < 4 Log 10 /cm 2 for bacteria) 9 .
Fig. 1

 The image on the left shows the lever mechanism to remove the cap; the image on the right shows the wire that is inserted in the cap.

Fig. 2

 The image shows the distal portion of the endoscope, without wire and cap.

The image on the left shows the lever mechanism to remove the cap; the image on the right shows the wire that is inserted in the cap. The image shows the distal portion of the endoscope, without wire and cap. Ten endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCPs) were performed in nine consecutive patients using the single-use Albarran module. Data are summarized in   Table 1 . The setting was urgent in one case and elective in nine. A native papilla was present in seven patients (70 %); the bile duct cannulation and successful procedure rates were both 100 %. Mean procedure time was 30 minutes. Indications for ERCP were biliary lithiasis in seven cases and cancer palliation in two cases. Sphincterotomy and balloon dilation were performed in five and four cases, respectively. Mechanical lithotripsy was performed only once, whereas stone clearing required balloon dilation in six cases. Brushing for cytology was done in one case and stenting for palliation in two.

Elevator performance evaluation 1 .

Patient (sex; age)IndicationBile duct cannulationOperative procedureOperative deviceStent characteristicsProcedure setting/duration (min)Elevator performance
M,83Biliary APYesPrecut, plastic stent placementPlastic, 10 Fr, 5 cmElective/31Good
M,76CBD stonesYes (previous sphincterotomy)Stent removal, balloon dilation, mechanic lithotripsy, stent placementCRE Boston Scientific, balloon dilator 12–15 mm, Fogarty cathetersNAElective/34Good
F,82Biliary hilar strictureYesBalloon dilation of main hepatic ductsCONMED balloon dilator 6.00 mmNAElective/43Good
M,53Cancer palliationYesStent placementPartially covered SEMS 10 mm Ø, 6 cmElective/19Good
M,59CBD stonesYesBalloon dilationCBD clearanceDormia basket, CRE Boston Scientific, balloon dilator 12–15 mmNAElective/20Good
M,76Biliary APYesStent placementPlastic 10 Fr, 5 cmUrgent/43Good
M;71CBD stonesYesCBD clearanceNAElective/22Good
F;42Cancer palliationYesBalloon dilationStent placementCRE Boston Scientific, balloon dilator 10–12 mmPartially covered SEMSElective/30Good
F;82 2 nd look Yes (previous sphincterotomy)Stent removalBrushingStent placement2 plastic stents, 10 Fr, 12 cmElective/43Good
M;41 2 nd look Yes (previous sphincterotomy)CBD clearanceNAElective/15Good

NA, not applicable; AP, acute pancreatitis; CBD, common bile duct; PC, pancreatic cancer; SEMS, self-expandable metallic stent.

Special attention was given to ease of accessory insertion, grip, friction, strength, and width of the movement, rated as good = no problems nor difficulties; fair = any problem occurred with no interference with the outcome of the procedure; poor = any problem occurred significant enough to interrupt the procedure or change the elevator.

NA, not applicable; AP, acute pancreatitis; CBD, common bile duct; PC, pancreatic cancer; SEMS, self-expandable metallic stent. Special attention was given to ease of accessory insertion, grip, friction, strength, and width of the movement, rated as good = no problems nor difficulties; fair = any problem occurred with no interference with the outcome of the procedure; poor = any problem occurred significant enough to interrupt the procedure or change the elevator. The aim of this small study was to gain insights into this novel device, with special attention directed towards identifying any technical problems related to use of the disposable systems. Notably, we did not find any issues with devices insertion, grip, friction, strength, or width of the elevator movements, in contrast to the study by Bang et al. 10 Because of the type of study (case series) and small sample size, it was not possible to compare the single-use Albarran maneuverability and mechanical features with the standard module. The only difference from the standard Albarran module was a shorter width during the elevator stroke, which did not hinder the planned interventions. In our experience, the disposable device allows the use of all devices commonly employed in biliary endoscopy. Importantly, no cases of sepsis or infectious events were reported. Unfortunately, a direct comparison of infectious event rate between the standard and single-use Albarran module is not possible at this time, due to the small sample size in the present case series. However, to our knowledge, this is the first description of single-use Albarran module use during routine endoscopy in real-life settings. Further studies and randomized controlled trials are needed to address comparisons with the standard duodenoscopes and to better evaluate its use in clinical practice.
  8 in total

1.  Clinical Evaluation of a Single-Use Duodenoscope for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  V Raman Muthusamy; Marco J Bruno; Richard A Kozarek; Bret T Petersen; Douglas K Pleskow; Divyesh V Sejpal; Adam Slivka; Joyce A Peetermans; Matthew J Rousseau; Gregory P Tirrell; Andrew S Ross
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 11.382

2.  Single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with disposable end caps.

Authors:  Arvind J Trindade; Andrew Copland; Amit Bhatt; Juan Carlos Bucobo; Vinay Chandrasekhara; Kumar Krishnan; Mansour A Parsi; Nikhil Kumta; Ryan Law; Rahul Pannala; Erik F Rahimi; Monica Saumoy; Guru Trikudanathan; Julie Yang; David R Lichtenstein
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sara Larsen; Rasmus Vinther Russell; Lotte Klinten Ockert; Stephen Spanos; Helena Strømstad Travis; Lars Holger Ehlers; Anders Mærkedahl
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2020-07-15

4.  Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: a randomized bench-model comparison.

Authors:  Andrew S Ross; Marco J Bruno; Richard A Kozarek; Bret T Petersen; Douglas K Pleskow; Divyesh V Sejpal; Adam Slivka; Dale Moore; Karina Panduro; Joyce A Peetermans; Jeffrey Insull; Matthew J Rousseau; Gregory P Tirrell; V Raman Muthusamy
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Evaluation of the performances of a single-use duodenoscope: Prospective multi-center national study.

Authors:  Bertrand Napoléon; Jean-Michel Gonzalez; Philippe Grandval; Andrea Lisotti; Arthur E Laquière; Christian Boustière; Marc Barthet; Frédéric Prat; Thierry Ponchon; Gianfranco Donatelli; Geoffroy Vanbiervliet
Journal:  Dig Endosc       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 7.559

6.  Prospective evaluation of an assessment tool for technical performance of duodenoscopes.

Authors:  Ji Young Bang; Thomas Rösch; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Shyam Thakkar; Ernesto Robalino Gonzaga; Benjamin Tharian; Sumant Inamdar; Linda S Lee; Patrick Yachimski; Priya Jamidar; Thiruvengadam Muniraj; Christopher DiMaio; Nikhil Kumta; Amrita Sethi; Peter Draganov; Dennis Yang; Talal Seoud; Abhilash Perisetti; Gayatri Bondi; Sachin Kirtane; Robert Hawes; C Mel Wilcox; Richard Kozarek; D Nageshwar Reddy; Shyam Varadarajulu
Journal:  Dig Endosc       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 7.559

7.  Concept of disposable duodenoscope: at what cost?

Authors:  Ji Young Bang; Bryce Sutton; Robert Hawes; Shyam Varadarajulu
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  Equivalent performance of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes in a randomised trial.

Authors:  Ji Young Bang; Robert Hawes; Shyam Varadarajulu
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 23.059

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.