R Hustak1,2,3, Z Vackova1,2, J Krajciova1,2, J Spicak1, E Kieslichova1, J Mares1, Jan Martinek4,5,6,7. 1. Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. 2. Institute of Physiology, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Trnava, Trnava, Slovakia. 4. Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz. 5. Institute of Physiology, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz. 6. Faculty of Medicine, Ostrava University, Ostrava, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz. 7. Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Videnska 1921, 140 21, Prague 4, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: G-POEM is an emerging method for treatment of severe gastroparesis. Safe mucosal closure is necessary to avoid adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two closure methods: clips and endoscopic suturing (ES) after G-POEM. METHODS: We performed a single center, prospective study. The closure method was assigned at the discretion of an endoscopist prior to the procedure. The main outcome was the proportion of subjects with successful closure. Unsuccessful closure was defined as a need for a rescue method, or a need for an additional intervention or incomplete closure-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were the easiness of closure (VAS score 1 = very difficult, 10 = easy), closure time, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients [21 female; mean age, range 47.5; (20-74)] were included; 20 received ES and 20 clips [mean number of clips 6; range (4-19)]. All 20 patients with ES (100%, 95% CI 84-100%) and 18 patients with clips (89%, 95% CI 70-97%) had successful closure (p = 0.49). One patient needed a rescue method (KING closure) and the other patient an additional clipping on POD1. Closure with clips was quicker [mean time 9.8 (range 4-20) min vs. 14.1 (5-21) min; p = 0.007] and cheaper [mean cost 807 USD (± 402) vs. 2353 USD (± 145); p < 0.001]. Endoscopist assessed the easiness of ES and clips as comparable [mean VAS, range 7.5 (3-10) (ES) vs. 6.9 (3-10) (clips); p = 0.3]. CONCLUSIONS: Both ES and clips are effective methods for mucosal closure in patients undergoing G-POEM. However, centres using clips should have a rescue closure method available as clips may fail in some patients. Closure with ES is more costly than with clips.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: G-POEM is an emerging method for treatment of severe gastroparesis. Safe mucosal closure is necessary to avoid adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two closure methods: clips and endoscopic suturing (ES) after G-POEM. METHODS: We performed a single center, prospective study. The closure method was assigned at the discretion of an endoscopist prior to the procedure. The main outcome was the proportion of subjects with successful closure. Unsuccessful closure was defined as a need for a rescue method, or a need for an additional intervention or incomplete closure-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were the easiness of closure (VAS score 1 = very difficult, 10 = easy), closure time, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients [21 female; mean age, range 47.5; (20-74)] were included; 20 received ES and 20 clips [mean number of clips 6; range (4-19)]. All 20 patients with ES (100%, 95% CI 84-100%) and 18 patients with clips (89%, 95% CI 70-97%) had successful closure (p = 0.49). One patient needed a rescue method (KING closure) and the other patient an additional clipping on POD1. Closure with clips was quicker [mean time 9.8 (range 4-20) min vs. 14.1 (5-21) min; p = 0.007] and cheaper [mean cost 807 USD (± 402) vs. 2353 USD (± 145); p < 0.001]. Endoscopist assessed the easiness of ES and clips as comparable [mean VAS, range 7.5 (3-10) (ES) vs. 6.9 (3-10) (clips); p = 0.3]. CONCLUSIONS: Both ES and clips are effective methods for mucosal closure in patients undergoing G-POEM. However, centres using clips should have a rescue closure method available as clips may fail in some patients. Closure with ES is more costly than with clips.
Authors: Radu Pescarus; Eran Shlomovitz; Ahmed M Sharata; Maria A Cassera; Kevin M Reavis; Christy M Dunst; Lee L Swanström Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Y Ichkhanian; K Vosoughi; M Aghaie Meybodi; J Jacques; A Sethi; A A Patel; A A Aadam; J R Triggs; A Bapaye; S Dorwat; P Benias; D M Chaves; M Barret; R J Law; N Browers; M Pioche; P V Draganov; A Kotzev; F Estremera; E Albeniz; M B Ujiki; Z M Callahan; M I Itani; O G Brewer; M A Khashab Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Michel Kahaleh; Jean-Michel Gonzalez; Ming-Ming Xu; Iman Andalib; Monica Gaidhane; Amy Tyberg; Monica Saumoy; Alberto Jose Baptista Marchena; Marc Barthet Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Bas L A M Weusten; Maximilien Barret; Albert J Bredenoord; Pietro Familiari; Jan-Michel Gonzalez; Jeanin E van Hooft; Sauid Ishaq; Vicente Lorenzo-Zúñiga; Hubert Louis; Suzanne van Meer; Helmut Neumann; Daniel Pohl; Frederic Prat; Daniel von Renteln; Edoardo Savarino; Rami Sweis; Jan Tack; Radu Tutuian; Jan Martinek Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Kia Vosoughi; Yervant Ichkhanian; Petros Benias; Larry Miller; A Aziz Aadam; Joseph R Triggs; Ryan Law; William Hasler; Nicole Bowers; Dalton Chaves; Alberto M Ponte-Neto; Peter Draganov; Dennis Yang; Maan El Halabi; Omid Sanaei; Olaya Isabella Brewer Gutierrez; Robert Stephen Bulat; John Pandolfino; Mouen Khashab Journal: Gut Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Ondrej Ryska; Jan Martinek; Tereza Filipkova; Radek Dolezel; Jana Juhasova; Jan Motlik; Miroslav Zavoral; Miroslav Ryska Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 1.195