| Title |
Comparison of ENDO CUT mode and FORCED COAG mode for the formation of stricture after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection in an in vivo porcine model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-6000-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Masamichi Arao, Ryu Ishihara, Yusuke Tonai, Taro Iwatsubo, Satoki Shichijyo, Noriko Matsuura, Hiroko Nakahira, Sachiko Yamamoto, Yoji Takeuchi, Koji Higashino, Noriya Uedo, Shinichi Nakatsuka |
| Abstract |
Stricture is a major complication of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial esophageal carcinoma. To date, various methods have been developed to prevent stricture. However, the mechanism by which different electrosurgical unit (ESU) modes affect the formation of post-ESD stricture has not been evaluated. This study aimed to compare the degree of stricture caused by two major ESU modes (ENDO CUT mode and FORCED COAG mode) in a porcine model. Twelve ESD procedures covering half of the circumference were performed in six pigs. Mucosal incision was performed with a ball-tip flush knife and submucosal dissection was performed with a hook knife; the two modes used were ENDO CUT I (Effect 2, Duration 2, Interval 3) and FORCED COAG mode (Effect 3, 40 W) (VIO300D, ERBE Germany). The pigs were killed humanely 30 days after ESD, and the severity of stricture and fibrosis was assessed. The resected site of the esophagus showed complete mucosal regrowth and scar formation in all pigs. There was no significant difference between the two modes in procedure time and size of resected specimen (14.4 ± 2.4 and 15.9 ± 6.1 min, P = 0.589; 626 ± 148, 661 ± 186 mm2, P = 0.74, respectively). Stricture rate and severity of fibrosis in the submucosal layer were significantly lower in ENDO CUT mode than in FORCED COAG mode (31.5 ± 16.0% vs 44.3 ± 11.6%, P = 0.046; 36.2 ± 17.1% vs 60.4 ± 26.8%, P = 0.024, respectively). ENDO CUT mode showed promising ability to attenuate fibrosis and stricture after esophageal ESD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 20% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 33% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Engineering | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 53% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,925,346
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,422
of 6,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,716
of 442,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#122
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 442,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.