4.7 Article

Creation of simulated papillae for endoscopic sphincterotomy and papillectomy training by using in vivo and ex vivo pig model

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 77, Issue 5, Pages 793-800

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.12.015

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: There are few in vivo and ex vivo models for training in endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) and endoscopic papillectomy (EP). Objective: We describe in vivo and ex vivo training pig models that use a simulated papilla for hands-on teaching of ES and EP. Design: Animal experiment. Setting: A referral center. Materials and Interventions: Hyaluronate solution (0.4%) was injected submucosally using a 25-gauge sclerotherapy needle to create a submucosal bleb by using porcine in vivo stomach, ex vivo stomach, and ex vivo rectum. ES and EP were then performed by using a pull-type sphincterotome and snare, respectively. Main Outcome Measurement: The feasibility of creating a simulated papilla for ES and EP procedures was tested by experienced and nonexperienced ERCP endoscopists. Results: Creation of a hemispheroidal bulge was successful in 13 of 17 (76%) areas within an in vivo stomach, 13 of 16 (81%) areas of an ex vivo stomach, and 16 of 16 (100%) areas in an ex vivo rectum. In the in vivo stomach model, ES was successfully and realistically performed on the anterior wall of the stomach rather than in other walls. In the ex vivo stomach model, endoscopists experienced in ERCP and trainees performed ES without difficulty, whereas it was difficult or impossible for nonexperienced trainees to perform ES. In the ex vivo rectum model, all 3 endoscopists were able to complete not only ES but also EP. Limitations: Pilot study. Conclusions: Although further studies are necessary to evaluate the reproducibility and cost-effectiveness, this novel pig model appears useful for ES and EP training. (Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77:793-800.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available