Technical Feasibility of a Guidetube for Various Endoscopic Procedures in Human Gastrointestinal Simulators

Efficacy of an assistive guide tube for improved endoscopic access to gastrointestinal lesions: an in vivo study in a porcine model

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Guide tube-assisted endoscopy for procedures that require repeated endoscopic access is safer and more effective than conventional endoscopy. However, its effectiveness has not been confirmed in animal studies. We assessed the usefulness of guide tube-assisted endoscopic procedures in an in vivo porcine model.

METHODS

Five different guide tube-assisted endoscopic procedures were performed by experienced endoscopists on a pig weighing 32 kg. To evaluate the efficacy of these procedures, we compared the endoscopic approach time when a guide tube was used to that when it was not. Additional endoscopic procedures using a guide tube were performed, including multiple foreign body extractions, multiple polypectomies, and multiple submucosal dissections. To evaluate safety, we compared the insertion force into the proximal esophagus between the guide tube and conventional overtube methods.

RESULTS

Using the endoscopic approach with a guide tube required a shorter average approach time to reach the three target lesions than when using the endoscopic approach without a guide tube (p<0.001). Compared to the conventional overtube method, the guide tube method produced a lower average resistance during insertion into the upper esophagus (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Guide tube-assisted endoscopic procedures are effective and safe for repeated endoscopic access in an in vivo porcine model.

Technical feasibility of a newly designed bendable forceps for difficult endoscopic tissue samplings (with video)

BACKGROUND

Biopsies with conventional forceps beyond the operating range are difficult and cumbersome. Thus, we developed a new bendable forceps for improved access to gastrointestinal lesions and evaluated its technical feasibility.

METHODS

A bendable forceps was constructed with two channels and a two-stage knob. The bending motion-related structures were designed to improve the range of motion. For the evaluation of the forceps, we used 2 gastrointestinal simulators: an ex vivo porcine model, and an in vivo porcine model with some difficult endoscopic biopsy cases. All evaluations were performed by 5 expert endoscopists and an expert pathologist.

RESULTS

Compared with the conventional forceps, the bendable forceps had greater efficacy in the simulator (6.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.96 ± 0.2, p < 0.001), ex vivo porcine model (6.33 ± 0.52 vs. 4.25 ± 0.89, p < 0.001), and in vivo porcine model (6.33 ± 0.52 vs. 4.25 ± 0.89, p < 0.001); greater safety in the simulator (1.92 ± 0.13 s vs. 4.88 ± 0.50 s, p < 0.001), ex vivo porcine model (2.02 ± 0.15 s vs 4.66 ± 0.27 s, p < 0.001), and in vivo porcine model (2.02 ± 0.15 s vs. 4.08 ± 0.70 s, p = 0.002); and larger specimens in the ex vivo porcine model (3.92 ± 0.03 mm vs. 3.85 ± 0.07 mm, p = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that compared with the conventional forceps, the bendable forceps was effective and safe to use for accessing difficult lesions in the three models. We believe that the bendable forceps serves as a useful supplementary diagnostic tool for accessing difficult lesions. However, further validation of its usefulness in the human body is needed.