Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope versus freehand gastric mucosectomy in an animal model

A. H. Low, J. G. Lee, Joseph Leung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope appears to be as effective but easier to perform than freehand mucosectomy. However, experience with this technique has been limited to small case series and there is a lack of data from direct comparison trials. Methods: Nine pigs were randomized to mucosectomy using a cap-fitted endoscope or the freehand technique. Five mucosal resections were performed at five different sites in the gastric body in each pig. Eight to ten milliliters of a saline, epinephrine, and methylene blue solution were injected to raise a bleb to simulate a mucosal lesion. Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope was performed by suctioning the bleb into the cap device pre-looped with an oval snare; mucosectomy was performed electrosurgically. Freehand mucosectomy was performed by encircling and then resecting the bleb using an oval snare. The ease of procedure (1 = 'very easy' to 5 = 'unable to complete') was assessed after each resection. The animals were recovered, maintained, and then humanely sacrificed after 2 weeks. Results: Five pigs underwent endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope and 4 underwent freehand mucosectomy. Eight animals survived for 2 weeks without complications and one animal from the freehand group died of massive hemorrhage within 48 hours of endoscopy. Both methods produced rounded resection specimens measuring 9 to 12 mm in diameter of the full thickness of the mucosa and the submucosa. Overall ease of resection was 1.84 ± 0.52 for the cap-fitted group and 2.98 ± 0.86 for the freehand group (p < 0.0001). All of the sites identified at autopsy were completely re-epithelialized, except for the five sites found in the pig that died prematurely. Conclusions: Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope is as effective, safe, but easier to perform compared with freehand mucosectomy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)608-612
Number of pages5
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume50
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

Endoscopes
Stomach
Animal Models
Swine
Blister
Methylene Blue
Epinephrine
Endoscopy
Autopsy
Mucous Membrane
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Hemorrhage
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope versus freehand gastric mucosectomy in an animal model. / Low, A. H.; Lee, J. G.; Leung, Joseph.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 50, No. 5, 1999, p. 608-612.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{68a7608478444253bc1b0d97d1976e33,
title = "Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope versus freehand gastric mucosectomy in an animal model",
abstract = "Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope appears to be as effective but easier to perform than freehand mucosectomy. However, experience with this technique has been limited to small case series and there is a lack of data from direct comparison trials. Methods: Nine pigs were randomized to mucosectomy using a cap-fitted endoscope or the freehand technique. Five mucosal resections were performed at five different sites in the gastric body in each pig. Eight to ten milliliters of a saline, epinephrine, and methylene blue solution were injected to raise a bleb to simulate a mucosal lesion. Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope was performed by suctioning the bleb into the cap device pre-looped with an oval snare; mucosectomy was performed electrosurgically. Freehand mucosectomy was performed by encircling and then resecting the bleb using an oval snare. The ease of procedure (1 = 'very easy' to 5 = 'unable to complete') was assessed after each resection. The animals were recovered, maintained, and then humanely sacrificed after 2 weeks. Results: Five pigs underwent endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope and 4 underwent freehand mucosectomy. Eight animals survived for 2 weeks without complications and one animal from the freehand group died of massive hemorrhage within 48 hours of endoscopy. Both methods produced rounded resection specimens measuring 9 to 12 mm in diameter of the full thickness of the mucosa and the submucosa. Overall ease of resection was 1.84 ± 0.52 for the cap-fitted group and 2.98 ± 0.86 for the freehand group (p < 0.0001). All of the sites identified at autopsy were completely re-epithelialized, except for the five sites found in the pig that died prematurely. Conclusions: Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope is as effective, safe, but easier to perform compared with freehand mucosectomy.",
author = "Low, {A. H.} and Lee, {J. G.} and Joseph Leung",
year = "1999",
doi = "10.1016/S0016-5107(99)80006-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "608--612",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope versus freehand gastric mucosectomy in an animal model

AU - Low, A. H.

AU - Lee, J. G.

AU - Leung, Joseph

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope appears to be as effective but easier to perform than freehand mucosectomy. However, experience with this technique has been limited to small case series and there is a lack of data from direct comparison trials. Methods: Nine pigs were randomized to mucosectomy using a cap-fitted endoscope or the freehand technique. Five mucosal resections were performed at five different sites in the gastric body in each pig. Eight to ten milliliters of a saline, epinephrine, and methylene blue solution were injected to raise a bleb to simulate a mucosal lesion. Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope was performed by suctioning the bleb into the cap device pre-looped with an oval snare; mucosectomy was performed electrosurgically. Freehand mucosectomy was performed by encircling and then resecting the bleb using an oval snare. The ease of procedure (1 = 'very easy' to 5 = 'unable to complete') was assessed after each resection. The animals were recovered, maintained, and then humanely sacrificed after 2 weeks. Results: Five pigs underwent endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope and 4 underwent freehand mucosectomy. Eight animals survived for 2 weeks without complications and one animal from the freehand group died of massive hemorrhage within 48 hours of endoscopy. Both methods produced rounded resection specimens measuring 9 to 12 mm in diameter of the full thickness of the mucosa and the submucosa. Overall ease of resection was 1.84 ± 0.52 for the cap-fitted group and 2.98 ± 0.86 for the freehand group (p < 0.0001). All of the sites identified at autopsy were completely re-epithelialized, except for the five sites found in the pig that died prematurely. Conclusions: Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope is as effective, safe, but easier to perform compared with freehand mucosectomy.

AB - Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope appears to be as effective but easier to perform than freehand mucosectomy. However, experience with this technique has been limited to small case series and there is a lack of data from direct comparison trials. Methods: Nine pigs were randomized to mucosectomy using a cap-fitted endoscope or the freehand technique. Five mucosal resections were performed at five different sites in the gastric body in each pig. Eight to ten milliliters of a saline, epinephrine, and methylene blue solution were injected to raise a bleb to simulate a mucosal lesion. Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope was performed by suctioning the bleb into the cap device pre-looped with an oval snare; mucosectomy was performed electrosurgically. Freehand mucosectomy was performed by encircling and then resecting the bleb using an oval snare. The ease of procedure (1 = 'very easy' to 5 = 'unable to complete') was assessed after each resection. The animals were recovered, maintained, and then humanely sacrificed after 2 weeks. Results: Five pigs underwent endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope and 4 underwent freehand mucosectomy. Eight animals survived for 2 weeks without complications and one animal from the freehand group died of massive hemorrhage within 48 hours of endoscopy. Both methods produced rounded resection specimens measuring 9 to 12 mm in diameter of the full thickness of the mucosa and the submucosa. Overall ease of resection was 1.84 ± 0.52 for the cap-fitted group and 2.98 ± 0.86 for the freehand group (p < 0.0001). All of the sites identified at autopsy were completely re-epithelialized, except for the five sites found in the pig that died prematurely. Conclusions: Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted endoscope is as effective, safe, but easier to perform compared with freehand mucosectomy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032730178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032730178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0016-5107(99)80006-6

DO - 10.1016/S0016-5107(99)80006-6

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 608

EP - 612

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 5

ER -