Comparison of endoscopic band ligation devices used for colonic diverticular bleeding: in vivo animal study.
animal study
colonoscopy
endoscopic band ligation
endoscopy
gastrointestinal bleeding
pathology
therapeutic endoscopy
Journal
JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
ISSN: 2397-9070
Titre abrégé: JGH Open
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101730833
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
07
08
2020
revised:
14
10
2020
accepted:
20
10
2020
entrez:
25
1
2021
pubmed:
26
1
2021
medline:
26
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endoscopic band ligation (EBL), used for the treatment of colonic diverticular bleeding, has a lower rebleeding rate than endoscopic clipping. However, different devices are used in Japan and the Western countries; no animal studies have been conducted to elucidate the safety of such devices. We compared two EBL devices, the first used in Japan and the second used in Western countries. The Japanese and Western EBL devices were compared by assessing the EBL safety at 40 sites in an animal model with a normal colon that is anatomically similar to the human colon. Macroscopic and pathological examinations were performed to evaluate the layer ligated by the band and the presence of perforation. The findings on day 1 and day 7 after EBL were compared. The ligated layer was the muscularis propria at 39 sites; the layer was not evaluated at one site where the band was unintentionally removed during the endoscopic procedure. Pathologically, there was no perforation at any of the assessed sites. There was no statistical difference in any of the pathological variables between the two devices or between days 1 and 7 after EBL. The total procedure time was significantly shorter with the Western EBL device. In this animal study, both evaluated devices were safe for EBL, without differences in the macroscopic and pathological variables after EBL. Ligation of the muscularis propria layer did not result in perforation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
OBJECTIVE
Endoscopic band ligation (EBL), used for the treatment of colonic diverticular bleeding, has a lower rebleeding rate than endoscopic clipping. However, different devices are used in Japan and the Western countries; no animal studies have been conducted to elucidate the safety of such devices. We compared two EBL devices, the first used in Japan and the second used in Western countries.
METHODS AND RESULTS
RESULTS
The Japanese and Western EBL devices were compared by assessing the EBL safety at 40 sites in an animal model with a normal colon that is anatomically similar to the human colon. Macroscopic and pathological examinations were performed to evaluate the layer ligated by the band and the presence of perforation. The findings on day 1 and day 7 after EBL were compared. The ligated layer was the muscularis propria at 39 sites; the layer was not evaluated at one site where the band was unintentionally removed during the endoscopic procedure. Pathologically, there was no perforation at any of the assessed sites. There was no statistical difference in any of the pathological variables between the two devices or between days 1 and 7 after EBL. The total procedure time was significantly shorter with the Western EBL device.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In this animal study, both evaluated devices were safe for EBL, without differences in the macroscopic and pathological variables after EBL. Ligation of the muscularis propria layer did not result in perforation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33490613
doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12445
pii: JGH312445
pmc: PMC7812471
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
50-55Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. JGH Open published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Jan;87(1):58-66
pubmed: 28843587
Clin J Gastroenterol. 2020 Feb;13(1):6-10
pubmed: 31367844
Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Aug;62(2):224-7
pubmed: 16046983
J Nippon Med Sch. 2008 Jun;75(3):157-61
pubmed: 18648173
ACG Case Rep J. 2015 Jul 09;2(4):218-20
pubmed: 26203444
Dig Endosc. 2020 Jan;32(2):240-250
pubmed: 31578767
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 16;376(11):1054-1063
pubmed: 28296600
Gastroenterology. 2019 Apr;156(5):1282-1298.e1
pubmed: 30660732
Dig Endosc. 2016 May;28(4):484
pubmed: 26861564
Endosc Int Open. 2015 Oct;3(5):E529-33
pubmed: 26528513
Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Dec;52(6):762-5
pubmed: 11115913
Surg Endosc. 2011 Nov;25(11):3574-8
pubmed: 21638178
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct;34(10):1784-1792
pubmed: 30897246
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Feb;75(2):382-7
pubmed: 21944311
J Morphol. 2013 Aug;274(8):956-64
pubmed: 23640793