Comparison of endoscopic band ligation devices used for colonic diverticular bleeding: in vivo animal study

A new device for endoscopic band ligation for colorectal diverticular bleeding

Background and study aims  Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has been reported to be effective for colorectal diverticular bleeding. However, current EBL devices have some limitations, and we have developed a novel EBL device. Methods  This novel EBL device has a tapered hood attached to the tip of the endoscope and an outer cylinder that loads two EBL bands. Twelve EBL procedures were performed in a live porcine model alternately using a conventional EBL device (Group C) and the novel EBL device (Group N). Results  EBL was successful in all cases in both groups. There were no cases of perforation in the 10 days after EBL. After ligation, the mean major axis of the ridge was significantly larger in Group N than Group C (9.7 ± 1.4 mm vs 7.2 ± 1.4 mm, P  = 0.011). Pathological examination revealed disruption of the muscularis propria at four of the six ligation sites in Group C and at five of the six ligation sites in Group N. Conclusions  Using this novel EBL device, it was possible to perform multiple ligation procedures in succession with a good field of view. No perforation was observed, but disruption of the muscularis propria was observed at approximately three-quarters of the ligation sites pathologically.

Comparison of Conventional and New Endoscopic Band Ligation Devices for Colonic Diverticular Bleeding

Background/Aims

Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used to treat colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). An endoscopic variceal ligation device for esophageal varices is used as a conventional EBL device (C-EBL). A new EBL device (N-EBL) was developed by Sumitomo Bakelite in August 2018. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of N-EBL compared with those of C-EBL.

Methods

Seventy-nine patients who underwent EBL for CDB at St. Luke's International Hospital, Japan, between 2017 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into the C-EBL and N-EBL groups. Their clinical outcomes, including achieving initial hemostasis, early rebleeding, procedure time, and EBL-associated adverse events, were evaluated.

Results

Of the 79 patients, 36 (45.6%) were in the C-EBL group and 43 (54.4%) were in the N-EBL group. The rate of achieving initial hemostasis was 100% in the C-EBL group and 93.0% in the N-EBL group. No significant difference was noted in the early rebleeding rate between the groups (P=0.24). The N-EBL group achieved a shorter median EBL procedure time than the C-EBL group (18.2 min vs. 14.2 min, P=0.02). No adverse events were observed in either group.

Conclusions

The N-EBL device is safe and useful and may reduce EBL procedure time.