Hemostatic forceps in various gastrointestinal bleeding scenarios: A single center comparative study with endoclip

M. Abdelaziz
{"title":"Hemostatic forceps in various gastrointestinal bleeding scenarios: A single center comparative study with endoclip","authors":"M. Abdelaziz","doi":"10.1080/2331205X.2019.1623000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Endoclip is currently the preferred tool for endoscopic hemostasis in many endoscopic units. But, due to some technical limitations of endoclip and success of hemostatic forceps in hemostasis during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), we aimed to study the efficiency and safety of hemostatic forceps in treating various causes of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Retrospectively, we reviewed the files of patients treated in Al-ahsa hospital endoscopy unit during the period from 1 January 2018 to 30 November 2018. We enrolled 33 patients with GI bleeding that necessitate endoscopic treatment. During hemostatic forceps use, the blood was washed out using a water-jet-equipped, single-channel gastroscope. The bleeding points were pinched and gently retracted with hemostatic forceps. Monopolar electrocoagulation was performed using an electrosurgical current generator. Three patients suffered from post-sphincterotomy bleeding that treated initially with hemostatic forceps with 100% primary hemostasis without complications. Fifteen patients were treated with endoclipping with 100% primary hemostasis and two patients (13%) had rebleeding. The procedure duration was 8.53 ± 3.58 min. Hemostatic forceps was used as a primary tool for hemostasis in another 15 patients with achieved hemostasis in all patients without any subsequent complications. The procedure duration was 5.27 ± 2.05 min (P = 0.005). In conclusion, hemostatic forceps can be an effective, fast, as well as safe alternative approach for GI bleeding of various origins.","PeriodicalId":10470,"journal":{"name":"Cogent Medicine","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cogent Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2331205X.2019.1623000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Endoclip is currently the preferred tool for endoscopic hemostasis in many endoscopic units. But, due to some technical limitations of endoclip and success of hemostatic forceps in hemostasis during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), we aimed to study the efficiency and safety of hemostatic forceps in treating various causes of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Retrospectively, we reviewed the files of patients treated in Al-ahsa hospital endoscopy unit during the period from 1 January 2018 to 30 November 2018. We enrolled 33 patients with GI bleeding that necessitate endoscopic treatment. During hemostatic forceps use, the blood was washed out using a water-jet-equipped, single-channel gastroscope. The bleeding points were pinched and gently retracted with hemostatic forceps. Monopolar electrocoagulation was performed using an electrosurgical current generator. Three patients suffered from post-sphincterotomy bleeding that treated initially with hemostatic forceps with 100% primary hemostasis without complications. Fifteen patients were treated with endoclipping with 100% primary hemostasis and two patients (13%) had rebleeding. The procedure duration was 8.53 ± 3.58 min. Hemostatic forceps was used as a primary tool for hemostasis in another 15 patients with achieved hemostasis in all patients without any subsequent complications. The procedure duration was 5.27 ± 2.05 min (P = 0.005). In conclusion, hemostatic forceps can be an effective, fast, as well as safe alternative approach for GI bleeding of various origins.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
止血钳在各种胃肠道出血情况中的应用:与夹腹的单中心比较研究
摘要内镜内夹是目前许多内镜单位首选的内镜止血工具。但是,由于内镜粘膜下剥离术(ESD)中,由于内镜内夹的技术限制以及止血钳在止血中的成功,我们的目的是研究止血钳在治疗各种原因的胃肠道出血中的有效性和安全性。回顾性地,我们回顾了2018年1月1日至2018年11月30日期间在Al-ahsa医院内窥镜检查部门治疗的患者档案。我们招募了33例需要内镜治疗的消化道出血患者。在使用止血钳期间,使用配备喷水的单通道胃镜将血液冲洗出来。用止血钳捏住出血点,轻轻缩回。单极电凝使用电外科电流发生器进行。3例患者出现括约肌切开术后出血,最初使用止血钳治疗,100%原发性止血,无并发症。15例患者接受内夹治疗,100%原发性止血,2例(13%)再次出血。手术时间为8.53±3.58 min。另外15例患者使用止血钳作为主要止血工具,所有患者均成功止血,无后续并发症。手术时间为5.27±2.05 min (P = 0.005)。总之,止血钳对于各种原因的消化道出血是一种有效、快速、安全的替代方法。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Factors associated with uptake of community client-led ART delivery model at Mulago adult HIV clinic _ Mulago National Referral Hospital Malaria interventions and control programes in Sub-Saharan Africa: A narrative review Quantitative assessment of specific serum IgGs may verify source of environmental exposure in extrinsic allergic alveolitis (EAA) Divergence in fertility levels and patterns of muslim-majority countries of maghreb and middle/West Africa Exploration of how to make the collaborative planning process work - a grounded theory study
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1