4.7 Article

Effective and Secure Closure after Duodenal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Combination of Endoscopic Ligation with O-Ring Closure and Over-the-Scope Clip

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134238

关键词

duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection; over-the-scope clip; endoscopic ligation with O-ring closure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the efficacy and safety of the B-OTSC method for preventing delayed adverse events in patients undergoing duodenal ESD. The results showed a 100% closure rate and no delayed adverse events, indicating that B-OTSC is a safe and effective method for closure after duodenal ESD.
Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is associated with high incidences of intraoperative complications and delayed adverse events (AEs). Delayed AEs can be reduced by closing the post-ESD defects. We developed a new method of closure after duodenal ESD, combining endoscopic ligation with O-ring closure (E-LOC) with an over-the-scope clip (OTSC) (Band OTSC; B-OTSC). Here, we conducted a single-center, retrospective, observational study to investigate the efficacy and safety of the B-OTSC method for preventing delayed AEs in patients undergoing duodenal ESD. The study included nine patients with superficial nonpapillary duodenal epithelial tumors who underwent ESD and were closed with B-OTSC from February 2021 to February 2023. There were no delayed AEs (0%), the mean (& PLUSMN; standard deviation) closure time was 53 & PLUSMN; 21.6 min, the complete closure rate was 100%, and the mean hospital stay was 7.8 & PLUSMN; 1.8 days. The sustained closure rates at postoperative days 3 and 7 were 88.9% and 88.9%, respectively. The historical analysis indicated a significant difference in cost between B-OTSC and conventional OTSC (p < 0.01). In conclusion, B-OTSC was a safe, secure, and cost-effective method of closure after duodenal ESD, even in patients with post-ESD defects of more than half the circumference.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据