一种用于胃内镜下粘膜剥离的新型止血装置:一项比较韩国Coajet和hemgrasper的前瞻性随机对照试验。

IF 2.3 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Clinical Endoscopy Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-04 DOI:10.5946/ce.2024.295
Sang Un Kim, Seong Woo Jeon
{"title":"一种用于胃内镜下粘膜剥离的新型止血装置:一项比较韩国Coajet和hemgrasper的前瞻性随机对照试验。","authors":"Sang Un Kim, Seong Woo Jeon","doi":"10.5946/ce.2024.295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is often accompanied by bleeding. Coajet, a new device containing an injection needle, has been found to be useful in achieving hemostasis through monopolar contact. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this new hemostatic device by comparing it to hemostatic forceps (Hemograsper).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, randomized, single-center study enrolled consecutive patients scheduled to undergo gastric ESD from February 2022 to January 2023. The Hemograsper group (HG) underwent hemostasis using the conventional method, whereas the Coajet group (CG) used this new tool for lesion marking, submucosal injection in the initial stage of ESD, and then for hemostasis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total 56 patients were enrolled in this study (HG, 28; CG, 28). No significant differences in age, sex, diagnosis, location, endoscopic size, or morphology were observed between the two groups. No significant difference in total operative time (HG, 16.0±6.9 minutes vs. CG, 12.4±6.7 minutes; p=0.05) and hemostatic time (HG, 186.6±134.5 seconds vs. CG, 130.4±81.5 seconds; p=0.06) were observed between the two groups. No differences in other procedure-related variables, such as complete en-bloc resection rate, length of admission, grade of immediate bleeding, and delayed bleeding within 30 days (HG, n=1 vs. CG, n=1), were noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The new hemostatic device, Coajet, showed comparable efficacy to that of conventional hemostatic forceps for bleeding control and the prevention of delayed bleeding in gastric ESD.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":"58 4","pages":"552-560"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12344555/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A new hemostatic device for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing Coajet and Hemograsper in Korea.\",\"authors\":\"Sang Un Kim, Seong Woo Jeon\",\"doi\":\"10.5946/ce.2024.295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is often accompanied by bleeding. Coajet, a new device containing an injection needle, has been found to be useful in achieving hemostasis through monopolar contact. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this new hemostatic device by comparing it to hemostatic forceps (Hemograsper).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, randomized, single-center study enrolled consecutive patients scheduled to undergo gastric ESD from February 2022 to January 2023. The Hemograsper group (HG) underwent hemostasis using the conventional method, whereas the Coajet group (CG) used this new tool for lesion marking, submucosal injection in the initial stage of ESD, and then for hemostasis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total 56 patients were enrolled in this study (HG, 28; CG, 28). No significant differences in age, sex, diagnosis, location, endoscopic size, or morphology were observed between the two groups. No significant difference in total operative time (HG, 16.0±6.9 minutes vs. CG, 12.4±6.7 minutes; p=0.05) and hemostatic time (HG, 186.6±134.5 seconds vs. CG, 130.4±81.5 seconds; p=0.06) were observed between the two groups. No differences in other procedure-related variables, such as complete en-bloc resection rate, length of admission, grade of immediate bleeding, and delayed bleeding within 30 days (HG, n=1 vs. CG, n=1), were noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The new hemostatic device, Coajet, showed comparable efficacy to that of conventional hemostatic forceps for bleeding control and the prevention of delayed bleeding in gastric ESD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"58 4\",\"pages\":\"552-560\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12344555/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.295\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胃镜下粘膜下夹层(ESD)常伴有出血。Coajet是一种包含注射针的新装置,已被发现可通过单极接触实现止血。本研究旨在通过与止血钳(止血钳)的比较来评价这种新型止血装置的有效性和安全性。方法:这项前瞻性、随机、单中心研究纳入了计划于2022年2月至2023年1月接受胃ESD治疗的连续患者。止血钳组(HG)采用常规止血方法,而Coajet组(CG)使用这种新工具进行病变标记,在ESD初期进行粘膜下注射,然后止血。结果:本研究共纳入56例患者(HG, 28;CG, 28)。两组在年龄、性别、诊断、位置、内镜大小或形态学上均无显著差异。总手术时间无显著差异(HG, 16.0±6.9分钟vs CG, 12.4±6.7分钟;p=0.05)和止血时间(HG, 186.6±134.5秒vs. CG, 130.4±81.5秒;P =0.06)。其他手术相关变量,如全组切除率、入院时间、立即出血分级和30天内延迟出血(HG, n=1 vs. CG, n=1)均无差异。结论:新型止血装置Coajet在控制胃ESD出血及预防延迟性出血方面的效果与传统止血钳相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A new hemostatic device for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing Coajet and Hemograsper in Korea.

Background: Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is often accompanied by bleeding. Coajet, a new device containing an injection needle, has been found to be useful in achieving hemostasis through monopolar contact. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this new hemostatic device by comparing it to hemostatic forceps (Hemograsper).

Methods: This prospective, randomized, single-center study enrolled consecutive patients scheduled to undergo gastric ESD from February 2022 to January 2023. The Hemograsper group (HG) underwent hemostasis using the conventional method, whereas the Coajet group (CG) used this new tool for lesion marking, submucosal injection in the initial stage of ESD, and then for hemostasis.

Results: A total 56 patients were enrolled in this study (HG, 28; CG, 28). No significant differences in age, sex, diagnosis, location, endoscopic size, or morphology were observed between the two groups. No significant difference in total operative time (HG, 16.0±6.9 minutes vs. CG, 12.4±6.7 minutes; p=0.05) and hemostatic time (HG, 186.6±134.5 seconds vs. CG, 130.4±81.5 seconds; p=0.06) were observed between the two groups. No differences in other procedure-related variables, such as complete en-bloc resection rate, length of admission, grade of immediate bleeding, and delayed bleeding within 30 days (HG, n=1 vs. CG, n=1), were noted.

Conclusions: The new hemostatic device, Coajet, showed comparable efficacy to that of conventional hemostatic forceps for bleeding control and the prevention of delayed bleeding in gastric ESD.

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
Clinical Endoscopy
Clinical Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
95
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信