Literature DB >> 7060912

Comparison of endoscopic electrocoagulation and laser photocoagulation of bleeding canine gastric ulcers.

J H Johnston, D M Jensen, W Mautner.   

Abstract

The most promising endoscopic hemostatic techniques all depend upon heat to coagulate. Four thermally active techniques under similar controlled conditions in this endoscopic study were compared. The study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and histologic damage of monopolar electrocoagulation (MPEC), bipolar electrocoagulation (BPEC), argon laser photocoagulation (ALP) and neodymium-yytrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser photocoagulation applied endoscopically to control bleeding from standard canine gastric ulcers. An open-closed model utilizing a nontraumatic intestinal clamp in heparinized adult mongrel dogs was used. Bleeding ulcers were randomly assigned to an endoscopic treatment modality or control. The endoscopic techniques and parameters of treatment for this study were established from a previous experience with each modality and from endoscopic treatment in pilot studies. Quantitative efficacy and subjective ease of endoscopic treatment were evaluated acutely; gross and histologic injury were determined after 7 days. Our conclusions were that more energy or greater power was required with each method to treat bleeding standard ulcers efficiently through the endoscope than at laparotomy. It was also concluded that each method was 93% or more effective in halting bleeding in this canine ulcer model but there were differences in ease of endoscopic use. Both lasers were much easier to apply than electrocoagulation. The order of decreasing ease of application was YAG, ALP, MPEC, BPEC. Argon laser and BPEC caused significantly less tissue injury than either MPEC or YAG. The order of increasing injury or decreasing margin of safety was ALP, BPEC, YAG and MPEC. In contrast to electrocoagulation, especially monopolar, laser related tissue injury was generally predictable and correlated with total treatment energy, animal weight or gastric overdistension, or both. The limitations, advantages, and disadvantages of each hemostatic technique are discussed and compared.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7060912

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  7 in total

1.  Are surgeons aware of the dangers of diathermy?

Authors:  T V Sudhindra; A Joseph; C J Hacking; P N Haray
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Comparison of monopolar electrocoagulation, bipolar electrocoagulation, Ultracision, and Ligasure.

Authors:  Theodore Diamantis; Michael Kontos; Antonios Arvelakis; Spiridon Syroukis; Dimitris Koronarchis; Apostolos Papalois; Emmanuel Agapitos; Elias Bastounis; Andreas C Lazaris
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.549

3.  Vascular ectasias of the colon--1986.

Authors:  S J Boley; L J Brandt
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 4.  Laser photocoagulation in alimentary bleeding.

Authors:  C P Swain
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Authors:  Aric J Hui; Joseph J Y Sung
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-04

6.  Bipolar electrocoagulation versus Nd-YAG laser photocoagulation for upper gastrointestinal bleeding lesions.

Authors:  J S Goff
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Which electrode? A comparison of four endoscopic methods of electrocoagulation in experimental bleeding ulcers.

Authors:  C P Swain; T N Mills; E Shemesh; J M Dark; M R Lewin; J S Clifton; T C Northfield; P B Cotton; P R Salmon
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 23.059

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.