首页> 外文期刊>Gastrointestinal Endoscopy >A randomized comparison of a new flexible bipolar hemostasis forceps designed principally for NOTES versus a conventional surgical laparoscopic bipolar forceps for intra-abdominal vessel sealing in a porcine model.
【24h】

A randomized comparison of a new flexible bipolar hemostasis forceps designed principally for NOTES versus a conventional surgical laparoscopic bipolar forceps for intra-abdominal vessel sealing in a porcine model.

机译:在猪模型中,主要为NOTES设计的新型柔性双极止血钳与用于腹腔内血管封闭的常规外科腹腔镜双极钳的随机比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Current devices for hemostasis in flexible endoscopy are inferior to methods used during open or laparoscopic surgery and might be ineffective for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare new flexible bipolar forceps (FBF), designed principally for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, with laparoscopic bipolar forceps (LBF) for hemostasis of intra-abdominal porcine arteries. SETTING: Surgical laboratories in Europe and the United States. DESIGN AND INTERVENTIONS: New FBF for hemostasis (3.7-mm diameter), featuring electrode isolation, were compared with rigid 5-mm LBF (ERBE BiClamp LAP forceps) at recommended settings. A porcine model of acute hemostasis was prepared by suturing the uterine horns and cecum to the abdominal wall, exposing uterine arteries, ovarian pedicles, cecal mesenteric bundles, and the inferior mesenteric artery. This allowed access to 10 vessels in each pig by transabdominal laparoscopic devices or a transgastric double-channel gastroscope. Vessels were measured, coagulated at 4 and more points, and transected. Blood pressure was increased to more than 200 mm Hg for 10 minutes by administering phenylephrine. Delayed bleeding was identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: In 7 pigs, a total of 65 vessels (1.5-6.0 mm) were randomly allocated to FBF (n = 32) or LBF (n = 33). Successful hemostasis both before and after blood pressure increase was equivalent between the 2 groups (before: 88% FBF vs 88% LBF, not significant [NS]; after: 97% FBF vs 94% LBF, NS). With FBF, the number of seals per vessel was 4.8 vs 4.4 with LBF (NS). The energy used to create FBF seals was 19.8 J vs 38.2 J for LBF (P < .05). LIMITATIONS: Results from porcine studies may not reflect patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In a porcine model, transgastric FBF endoscopic hemostasis was as effective as conventional laparoscopic hemostasis using LBF across a wide range of vessels.
机译:背景:目前在柔性内窥镜中用于止血的设备不如开放式或腹腔镜手术中使用的方法,并且对于自然孔腔内腔镜手术可能无效。目的:比较主要用于自然孔腔内腔镜手术的新型柔性双极钳(FBF)与腹腔镜双极钳(LBF)用于腹腔内猪动脉止血的比较。地点:欧洲和美国的外科实验室。设计与干预:在推荐设置下,将用于电极止血的新型FBF(直径3.7 mm)与刚性5 mm LBF(ERBE BiClamp LAP钳)进行了比较。通过将子宫角和盲肠缝合至腹壁,暴露子宫动脉,卵巢蒂,盲肠肠系膜束和肠系膜下动脉,制备猪急性止血模型。这允许通过腹腔腹腔镜设备或经胃双通道胃镜进入每头猪的10个血管。测量血管,在4个或更多点凝结并横切。服用去氧肾上腺素可使血压在10分钟内升至200毫米汞柱以上。确定了延迟出血。主要观察指标:在7头猪中,总共65头血管(1.5-6.0毫米)被随机分配到FBF(n = 32)或LBF(n = 33)。两组血压升高前后的成功止血效果相同(之前:88%FBF对88%LBF,无显着性[NS];之后:97%FBF对94%LBF,NS)。使用FBF时,每个容器的密封件数量为4.8,而使用LBF(NS)时为4.4。用于形成FBF密封的能量为19.8 J,而LBF为38.2 J(P <.05)。局限性:猪研究的结果可能无法反映患者的结果。结论:在猪模型中,经腹腔镜FBF内窥镜止血的效果与常规腹腔镜下在大范围血管中使用LBF的止血效果一样。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号