Comparative Study of NOTES Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Gastrojejunostomy in Pigs: A Prospective Study

4Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background. Surgical gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJJ) is considered the standard palliative option for gastric outlet obstruction. The use of endoscopic GJJ has generated a lot of attention and has enlarged the horizon for patients with open surgery contraindications. Our study aimed to assess and compare 2 purely endoscopic GJJ approaches using a lumen-apposing hot tip double-flanged metal stent, with focus on technical and clinical success rates on experimental animals. Methods. Two endoscopic GJJ techniques using a double-flanged self-expandable metal stent were compared on 8 pigs. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) was used on 4 pigs, while the other group was subjected to an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) balloon-guided approach. Results. On a 21-day follow-up, both EUS and NOTES-GJJ were technically successful in all experimental animals, and necropsy confirmed full integrity of the anastomosis. Adhesions were confirmed only on 2 pigs after NOTES procedure. The mean time for GJJ-NOTES completion was 31.375 ± 2.03, whereas EUS-GJJ was completed with a median time of 20.275 ± 0.65. The stent distance from the stomach varied; in NOTES-GJJ it was 47.8 ± 11.13 cm away from the pylorus, whereas in EUS-GJJ was at 37 ± 1.85 cm. Conclusion. No major complications were encountered during both procedures. EUS-GJJ balloon-guided approach might be a more attractive technique by using sonographic guidance, because of less endoscopic instrument changing as well as in achieving the desired anastomotic distance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ungureanu, B. S., Pătrașcu, Ștefan, Drăgoescu, A., Nicolau, C., Copăescu, C., Șurlin, V., & Săftoiu, A. (2018). Comparative Study of NOTES Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Gastrojejunostomy in Pigs: A Prospective Study. Surgical Innovation, 25(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350617748278

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free