Direct Traction Combined With Electrified Snare: A Clinical Study on the Removal of Retained Metallic Clips After Gastric Endoscopic Resection (ER)

IF 2 4区医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2026-09-26 DOI:10.1155/ijcp/2659422

Bing Bai, Long Xu, Dengpan Dai, Bingxi Zhou, Xiuqi Wang, Shengli Kuang

{"title":"Direct Traction Combined With Electrified Snare: A Clinical Study on the Removal of Retained Metallic Clips After Gastric Endoscopic Resection (ER)","authors":"Bing Bai, Long Xu, Dengpan Dai, Bingxi Zhou, Xiuqi Wang, Shengli Kuang","doi":"10.1155/ijcp/2659422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of direct traction combined with electrified snare for the removal of retained metallic clips after gastric endoscopic resection (ER) and to provide a reliable clinical protocol for minimizing complication risks and enhancing postoperative recovery.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 48 patients with retained metallic clips after gastric ER, admitted between January 2022 and December 2024. The clip retention duration ranged from 3 to 12 months. Removal was attempted by direct traction first; an electrocautery-assisted snare was used as a rescue when traction failed. All patients were followed up for 3 months.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of 62 retained clips, 60 (96.8%) were successfully retrieved endoscopically—40 (64.5%) by traction alone and 20 (32.3%) with electrocautery assistance—giving a 100% (48/48) successful-procedure rate, with a procedure time of 2–10 min. Two clips (3.2%) in two patients were left in situ because they were deeply embedded with a high perceived bleeding risk. Minor oozing occurred in 3 patients (6.3%) and was managed endoscopically; no perforation occurred. At 3 months, presenting symptoms had resolved in the symptomatic patients, and wounds were healed endoscopically.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The combination of direct traction and an electrified snare is a safe and effective approach for the management of retained metallic clips after gastric ER. This technique appears feasible and safe for clip retrieval in this preliminary, single-center series; comparative studies are warranted before broader clinical application can be advocated. Further studies are warranted to evaluate its long-term efficacy and safety.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2026 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/ijcp/2659422","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ijcp/2659422","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of direct traction combined with electrified snare for the removal of retained metallic clips after gastric endoscopic resection (ER) and to provide a reliable clinical protocol for minimizing complication risks and enhancing postoperative recovery.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 48 patients with retained metallic clips after gastric ER, admitted between January 2022 and December 2024. The clip retention duration ranged from 3 to 12 months. Removal was attempted by direct traction first; an electrocautery-assisted snare was used as a rescue when traction failed. All patients were followed up for 3 months.

Results

Of 62 retained clips, 60 (96.8%) were successfully retrieved endoscopically—40 (64.5%) by traction alone and 20 (32.3%) with electrocautery assistance—giving a 100% (48/48) successful-procedure rate, with a procedure time of 2–10 min. Two clips (3.2%) in two patients were left in situ because they were deeply embedded with a high perceived bleeding risk. Minor oozing occurred in 3 patients (6.3%) and was managed endoscopically; no perforation occurred. At 3 months, presenting symptoms had resolved in the symptomatic patients, and wounds were healed endoscopically.

Conclusion

The combination of direct traction and an electrified snare is a safe and effective approach for the management of retained metallic clips after gastric ER. This technique appears feasible and safe for clip retrieval in this preliminary, single-center series; comparative studies are warranted before broader clinical application can be advocated. Further studies are warranted to evaluate its long-term efficacy and safety.

查看原文本刊更多论文

直接牵引联合电诱捕器去除胃内镜切除（ER）后残留金属夹的临床研究

目的探讨直接牵引联合电诱捕器在胃内镜切除（ER）后金属夹取出术中的有效性和安全性，为减少并发症风险和提高术后恢复提供可靠的临床方案。方法回顾性分析2022年1月至2024年12月收治的48例胃急诊术后金属夹残留患者。夹子的保留时间从3个月到12个月不等。首先通过直接牵引尝试移除；当牵引失败时，使用电灼辅助陷阱作为救援。所有患者均随访3个月。结果在62个保留夹子中，60个（96.8%）在内镜下成功取出，其中40个（64.5%）单独牵引，20个（32.3%）辅助电烫，手术成功率为100%(48/48)，手术时间为2-10 min。2例患者的2个夹子（3.2%）留在原位，因为它们深埋在高出血风险中。3例（6.3%）患者发生轻微渗出，经内镜处理；无穿孔。3个月时，有症状患者的症状消失，内窥镜下伤口愈合。结论直接牵引联合电诱捕是处理胃内窥镜术后金属夹残留的一种安全有效的方法。在这个初步的单中心系列中，这种技术似乎是可行和安全的。在提倡更广泛的临床应用之前，需要进行比较研究。需要进一步的研究来评估其长期疗效和安全性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Clinical Practice 医学-医学：内科

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

274

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.