在介入性内窥镜超声检查中对扩张装置的扩张力进行机械评估。

IF 2.2 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2024-08-08 eCollection Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2351-0647
Takeshi Ogura, Saori Ueno, Akitoshi Hakoda, Atsushi Okuda, Nobu Nishioka, Jun Sakamoto, Masahiro Yamamura, Nobuhiro Hattori, Kimi Bessho, Hiroki Nishikawa, Rie Kanaoka, Youhei Kurose
{"title":"在介入性内窥镜超声检查中对扩张装置的扩张力进行机械评估。","authors":"Takeshi Ogura, Saori Ueno, Akitoshi Hakoda, Atsushi Okuda, Nobu Nishioka, Jun Sakamoto, Masahiro Yamamura, Nobuhiro Hattori, Kimi Bessho, Hiroki Nishikawa, Rie Kanaoka, Youhei Kurose","doi":"10.1055/a-2351-0647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and study aims</b> To insert the metal stent delivery system (8.5F) during interventional endoscopic ultrasound (I-EUS), several dilation steps are needed, which may be related to increased bile leakage from a fistula. There have been no definitive studies of dilation force. The aim of the present study was to evaluate dilation force during I-EUS using several dilation devices. <b>Methods</b> In the present study, seven dilation devices were evaluated including bougie dilators such as a straight-shaped dilator (the ES dilator, Soehendra dilator, a standard ERCP catheter) a screw-shaped dilator (Tornus ES, Soehendra stent retriever), and a 4-mm balloon catheter (REN biliary balloon catheter, Hurricane RX). The diameter of each dilator and dilation force were measured. <b>Results</b> Of the bougie dilators, the dilation force of the ES dilator was the highest (0.908±0.035 kg). Of the balloon catheters, the dilation force of the Hurricane RX (3.261±0.024 kg) was slightly higher than that of the REN (3.159±0.072 kg). Of the bougie dilators, although the diameter of the ES dilator was not larger than that of the Tornus ES, the dilation force was stronger. Similarly, the diameter of the Soehendra stent retriever was greater than that of the ERCP catheter or Soehendra dilator and the dilation force was lower. <b>Conclusions</b> Compared with bougie dilators, balloon catheters have stronger dilation force according to our experimental study. The present results should be evaluated in clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"12 8","pages":"E955-E961"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11309796/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mechanical evaluation of the dilation force of dilation devices during interventional endoscopic ultrasound.\",\"authors\":\"Takeshi Ogura, Saori Ueno, Akitoshi Hakoda, Atsushi Okuda, Nobu Nishioka, Jun Sakamoto, Masahiro Yamamura, Nobuhiro Hattori, Kimi Bessho, Hiroki Nishikawa, Rie Kanaoka, Youhei Kurose\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2351-0647\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background and study aims</b> To insert the metal stent delivery system (8.5F) during interventional endoscopic ultrasound (I-EUS), several dilation steps are needed, which may be related to increased bile leakage from a fistula. There have been no definitive studies of dilation force. The aim of the present study was to evaluate dilation force during I-EUS using several dilation devices. <b>Methods</b> In the present study, seven dilation devices were evaluated including bougie dilators such as a straight-shaped dilator (the ES dilator, Soehendra dilator, a standard ERCP catheter) a screw-shaped dilator (Tornus ES, Soehendra stent retriever), and a 4-mm balloon catheter (REN biliary balloon catheter, Hurricane RX). The diameter of each dilator and dilation force were measured. <b>Results</b> Of the bougie dilators, the dilation force of the ES dilator was the highest (0.908±0.035 kg). Of the balloon catheters, the dilation force of the Hurricane RX (3.261±0.024 kg) was slightly higher than that of the REN (3.159±0.072 kg). Of the bougie dilators, although the diameter of the ES dilator was not larger than that of the Tornus ES, the dilation force was stronger. Similarly, the diameter of the Soehendra stent retriever was greater than that of the ERCP catheter or Soehendra dilator and the dilation force was lower. <b>Conclusions</b> Compared with bougie dilators, balloon catheters have stronger dilation force according to our experimental study. The present results should be evaluated in clinical trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endoscopy International Open\",\"volume\":\"12 8\",\"pages\":\"E955-E961\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11309796/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endoscopy International Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2351-0647\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2351-0647","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和研究目的 在介入性内窥镜超声检查(I-EUS)过程中插入金属支架输送系统(8.5F)需要几个扩张步骤,这可能与瘘管胆汁渗漏增加有关。目前还没有关于扩张力的确切研究。本研究旨在评估 I-EUS 期间使用几种扩张装置的扩张力。方法 在本研究中,对七种扩张装置进行了评估,包括直形扩张器(ES 扩张器、Soehendra 扩张器、标准 ERCP 导管)、螺旋形扩张器(Tornus ES、Soehendra 支架牵引器)和 4 毫米球囊导管(REN 胆道球囊导管、Hurricane RX)。对每种扩张器的直径和扩张力进行了测量。结果 在各种扩张器中,ES 扩张器的扩张力最大(0.908±0.035 千克)。在球囊导管中,Hurricane RX(3.261±0.024 kg)的扩张力略高于 REN(3.159±0.072 kg)。在套管扩张器中,虽然 ES 扩张器的直径并不比 Tornus ES 大,但扩张力却更强。同样,Soehendra 支架牵引器的直径大于 ERCP 导管或 Soehendra 扩张器,但扩张力较低。结论 根据我们的实验研究,与球囊扩张器相比,球囊导管具有更强的扩张力。本结果应在临床试验中进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mechanical evaluation of the dilation force of dilation devices during interventional endoscopic ultrasound.

Background and study aims To insert the metal stent delivery system (8.5F) during interventional endoscopic ultrasound (I-EUS), several dilation steps are needed, which may be related to increased bile leakage from a fistula. There have been no definitive studies of dilation force. The aim of the present study was to evaluate dilation force during I-EUS using several dilation devices. Methods In the present study, seven dilation devices were evaluated including bougie dilators such as a straight-shaped dilator (the ES dilator, Soehendra dilator, a standard ERCP catheter) a screw-shaped dilator (Tornus ES, Soehendra stent retriever), and a 4-mm balloon catheter (REN biliary balloon catheter, Hurricane RX). The diameter of each dilator and dilation force were measured. Results Of the bougie dilators, the dilation force of the ES dilator was the highest (0.908±0.035 kg). Of the balloon catheters, the dilation force of the Hurricane RX (3.261±0.024 kg) was slightly higher than that of the REN (3.159±0.072 kg). Of the bougie dilators, although the diameter of the ES dilator was not larger than that of the Tornus ES, the dilation force was stronger. Similarly, the diameter of the Soehendra stent retriever was greater than that of the ERCP catheter or Soehendra dilator and the dilation force was lower. Conclusions Compared with bougie dilators, balloon catheters have stronger dilation force according to our experimental study. The present results should be evaluated in clinical trials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信