↓ Skip to main content

Stray energy transfer during endoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Stray energy transfer during endoscopy
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5427-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward L. Jones, Amin Madani, Douglas M. Overbey, Asimina Kiourti, Satheesh Bojja-Venkatakrishnan, Dean J. Mikami, Jeffrey W. Hazey, Todd R. Arcomano, Thomas N. Robinson

Abstract

Endoscopy is the standard tool for the evaluation and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders. While the risk of complication is low, the use of energy devices can increase complications by 100-fold. The mechanism of increased injury and presence of stray energy is unknown. The purpose of the study was to determine if stray energy transfer occurs during endoscopy and if so, to define strategies to minimize the risk of energy complications. A gastroscope was introduced into the stomach of an anesthetized pig. A monopolar generator delivered energy for 5 s to a snare without contacting tissue or the endoscope itself. The endoscope tip orientation, energy device type, power level, energy mode, and generator type were varied to mimic in vivo use. The primary outcome (stray current) was quantified as the change in tissue temperature (°C) from baseline at the tissue closest to the tip of the endoscope. Data were reported as mean ± standard deviation. Using the 60 W coag mode while changing the orientation of the endoscope tip, tissue temperature increased by 12.1 ± 3.5 °C nearest the camera lens (p < 0.001 vs. all others), 2.1 ± 0.8 °C nearest the light lens, and 1.7 ± 0.4 °C nearest the working channel. Measuring temperature at the camera lens, reducing power to 30 W (9.5 ± 0.8 °C) and 15 W (8.0 ± 0.8 °C) decreased stray energy transfer (p = 0.04 and p = 0.002, respectively) as did utilizing the low-voltage cut mode (6.6 ± 0.5 °C, p < 0.001). An impedance-monitoring generator significantly decreased the energy transfer compared to a standard generator (1.5 ± 3.5 °C vs. 9.5 ± 0.8 °C, p < 0.001). Stray energy is transferred within the endoscope during the activation of common energy devices. This could result in post-polypectomy syndrome, bleeding, or perforation outside of the endoscopist's view. Decreasing the power, utilizing low-voltage modes and/or an impedance-monitoring generator can decrease the risk of complication.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 15%
Librarian 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 6 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Unknown 7 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2017.
All research outputs
#13,538,247
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,893
of 6,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,295
of 454,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#36
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,087 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.