内镜下金属夹钳配合高频电凝治疗直结肠大息肉的临床分析

目的观察直径〉2cm的直结肠大息肉在内镜下应用金属夹钳夹息肉蒂部后再行高频电凝治疗的临床疗效。方法 2007年1月—2010年12月我院内镜下治疗直结肠大息肉46例,先应用金属夹钳夹息肉蒂部后再行高频电凝治疗,用Fujunin EC-2200型电子肠镜、金属夹推进器为Olympus HX-5QR-I（AE）、金属钛夹为HX-600-135、90,息肉蒂部用金属钛夹阻断血流后通过电凝电切法一次或分次切除息肉。结果 46例直结肠大息肉患者,共放置金属夹63枚（其中用1枚的28例,2枚的13例,3枚的3例）,均获成功,所有切除病灶创面理想,未发现出血及穿孔并发症。术后2～3周金属钛夹自行脱落。结论本法适用于宽蒂息肉,特别是长蒂息肉更为适宜。此方法操作简便,成功率高,安全有效、经济,设备要求不高,值得推广应用。     

内镜下钛夹、尼龙圈套辅助高频电切术治疗胃肠道巨大有蒂息肉的临床研究

目的 评价内镜下钛夹、尼龙圈套辅助高频电切术治疗胃肠道巨大息肉的效果及安全性.方法 对50例患者共85处消化道巨大有蒂息肉样病变分别采用钛夹、尼龙圈套辅助高频电凝切除术的治疗方法进行回顾性分析.结果 85枚巨大息肉中,上消化道15枚,结肠66枚,直肠4枚.其中62枚息肉采用尼龙圈套＋高频电凝切除术治疗,23枚息肉采用高频电凝切除术＋肽夹钳夹术治疗,术中无一例发生出血;术后迟发性出血2例（2.4%）,急诊内镜下钛夹止血成功,无其它并发症发生.结论 消化道息肉高频电切术后最常见且最棘手的并发症是出血,巨大息肉发生在术中或术后迟发性出血的机率更大,采用尼龙圈套及金属肽夹辅助高频电凝切除术,能有效预防粗蒂大息肉样病变切除术中和术后出血,是消化道巨大息肉内镜下治疗安全有效的联合治疗技术.     

肠镜下结肠巨大息肉切除155例临床分析

目的探讨肠镜下结肠巨大息肉切除的临床可行性及操作要点。方法回顾性分析1999年5月至2006年5月在解放军第211医院消化科经电子肠镜检查发现直径>2cm结肠巨大息肉患者155例(171枚息肉)的临床资料。结果171枚息肉中经内镜黏膜切除(EMR)103枚(整块切除89枚,分2块切除14枚),均为1次肠镜完成。68枚带蒂息肉行高频电圈套切除17枚,采用银夹加高频电圈套切除33枚,行尼龙套扎加电凝电切18枚。并发症:即时出血量<20mL者5例;20~50mL者3例。1例创面距直肠7cm处息肉,切除24h后迟发出血300mL,经及时处理后止血。结论结肠巨大息肉可以经内镜切除,在超声微探头辅助下依息肉形态采用不同的切除方法。     

内镜下金属夹治疗和预防消化道出血穿孔的价值

[目的]评估内镜下金属夹治疗和预防消化道出血穿孔中的临床价值。[方法]对138例消化道出血及息肉切除患者选用Olympus可旋式放置器HX-5QR-1和MD850型、HX-600—135型内镜金属夹防治消化道出血、穿孔。[结果]98例中有95例活动性消化道出血患者即时止血,成功率为96．9％,1周内再出血发生率为5．3％,平均使用钛夹2．5枚;40例息肉切除后应用金属夹预防消化道出血、穿孔,成功率为100％,平均使用钛夹1．5枚。[结论]内镜下采用金属夹治疗非静脉曲张性消化道出血和预防较大息肉切除后出血、穿孔疗效满意、安全易行。     

内镜下氩离子凝固术治疗老年人大肠息肉

目的探讨内镜下氩离子凝固术（APC）治疗老年人大肠息肉的安全性和有效性。方法采用德国ERBE公司生产的APC（VIO200D型）内镜专用氩气刀对电子肠镜检查发现的大肠息肉进行内镜下治疗。结果258例老年患者共检出525枚息肉全部使用APC治愈,根据息肉大小和形态,使用APC灼除302枚（57．5％）,APC切除89枚（17％）,黏膜下注射后APC切除134枚（25．5％）,局部渗血者行APC电凝或钛夹止血。术后2例（0．8％）出现少量便血,予药物治疗后出血停止,无穿孔和大出血等严重并发症。结论APC可作为老年人大肠息肉的首选治疗,安全性高,并发症少。     

内镜下单纯尼龙圈套扎治疗消化道巨大息肉

消化道息肉是最常见的消化道良性肿瘤 ,内镜下治疗方法有高频电凝切除、微波及激光等 ,但对于直径≥ 3ｃｍ的巨大粗蒂或宽基息肉 ,镜下电切除易发生肠出血及穿孔 ,只能采用手术切除[1] 。我们对消化道巨大息肉采用单纯尼龙圈套扎治疗 ,报道如下。一、材料和方法1.临床资料 :我院在 2 0 0 0年 4月～ 2 0 0 1年 2月对内镜下发现的食管、胃及结肠的 2 5例 2 7枚巨大息肉行镜下单纯尼龙圈套扎治疗。男 17例 ,女 8例 ,平均年龄 4 2岁。术前经电子内镜检查并取材活检排除恶性肿瘤 ,并常规查血小板计数 ,凝血筛选。息肉位于食管 1枚、胃 3枚、结肠 …     

结肠镜下电切治疗高风险息肉的预处理

目的:探讨结肠镜下电切治疗高风险息肉的预处理技巧、方法和效果.方法:本组患者131例,发现高风险息肉共145枚(包括大肠宽蒂息肉、大息肉、表面充血显著、基底有明显血管通过、内镜下暴露不佳等息肉);对于大肠宽蒂息肉(蒂部直径>1cm)电切治疗前用尼龙圈套器套扎息肉蒂部;对于>2cm有蒂息肉电切前(蒂部直径<1cm)金属钛夹闭息肉蒂部;对于2.0-3.0cm广基/亚蒂息肉先于息肉基底部黏膜下注射,充分抬举后进行切除;对于息肉表面充血显著、基底有明显血管通过、内镜下暴露不充分的大息肉,术前联系手术室,先试行结肠镜下切除,如果切除困难,立即腹腔镜治疗,观察肠出血、肠穿孔等并发症的发生.结果:经尼龙圈套器套扎后切除10枚,经金属钛夹钳夹后切除32枚,经息肉基底部黏膜下注射后切除60枚,于手术室结肠镜切除31枚,于手术室腹腔镜切除12枚,所有患者均未出现肠大出血及肠穿孔等严重并发症.结论:有效的预处理有助于高风险肠息肉内镜下高频电切的治疗,可提高治疗的安全性,避免肠出血、肠穿孔等并发症的发生,值得临床推广应用.     

尼龙绳和钛夹在大肠粗蒂息肉切除过程中的风险评估

目的 探讨尼龙绳联合高频电凝电切术和金属钛夹联合高频电凝电切术在大肠粗蒂息肉切除中的应用价值,并比较它们的疗效和安全性.方法 2006年1月～ 2012年12月连续选取大肠粗蒂息肉患者119例,并随机分为两组:A组,59例,共64枚息肉,应用尼龙绳套扎息肉的基底部,然后用高频电套圈器进行息肉电凝电切术;B组,60例,共68枚息肉,使用钛夹夹于息肉的基底部,然后使用高频电套圈器进行息肉电凝电切术.结果 所有息肉均成功摘除,A组和B组各有出血患者2例和3例.结论 内镜下尼龙绳联合高频电凝电切术或者金属钛夹联合高频电凝切除术治疗大肠粗蒂息肉,疗效与安全性均较好,两种方法的疗效和安全性比较差异均无统计学意义.     

内镜下使用尼龙绳或钛夹辅助切除大肠粗蒂息肉安全性与疗效比较

[目的]探讨尼龙绳联合高频电凝电切术或金属钛夹联合高频电切术在切除结肠粗蒂息肉中安全性与疗效。[方法]收集经过结肠镜检查发现大肠粗蒂息肉(直径≥1.0cm)患者78例,分为尼龙绳组(A组,n=38)、金属钛夹组(B组,n=40)。A组使用尼龙绳套扎息肉基底部后再用高频电圈套器行息肉电凝电切术:B组使用钛夹夹于息肉基底部再用高频电圈套器行息肉电凝电切术。[结果]A组、B组息肉均一次性切除,均未出现肠穿孔;术后并发出血的患者A组1例、B组2例,术后并发感染的患者A组1例、B组1例;2组安全性与疗效比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]内镜下使用尼龙绳或钛夹辅助切除大肠粗蒂息肉安全有效,操作简单,值得临床借鉴推广。     

内镜下黏膜剥离术治疗大肠侧向发育型肿瘤

目的探讨一种安全、可靠的结肠侧向发育型肿瘤的治疗方法。方法 12例病人结肠镜检查发现息肉后，常规染色，息肉基底部注射肾上腺素盐水，使病灶隆起，黏膜与肌层分离，再以高频电切除，创面过大者用钛夹封闭。结果 7例病人均一次切除，5例病人因患肉过大分次切除，1个月后复查未见息肉复发。结论 内镜下黏膜剥离术是治疗结肠侧向发育型肿瘤的首选而安全的治疗方法，可达到根治目的。     

Prospective trial of endoscopic clips versus combination therapy in upper GI bleeding (PROTECCT--UGI bleeding)

BACKGROUND: It is not known if combination therapy of epinephrine injection and multipolar electrocoagulation or hemoclips are a more efficient or effective treatment for patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. METHODS: Adult patients with active nonvariceal upper GI bleeding, a nonbleeding visible vessel, or after removal of an adherent clot findings of active bleeding or a visible vessel were studied. Patients were randomized to either therapy and the outcomes were assessed at 30 days. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were studied: 26 patients randomized to hemoclips and 21 to combination therapy. There were 22 patients with active bleeding, 13 with a nonbleeding visible vessel, and 12 with an adherent clot. The median duration of endoscopic therapy was 17 min in the hemoclip group versus 20 min for the combination therapy, p= 0.29. Primary hemostasis with successful initial control of bleeding occurred in 26 (100%) of 26 hemoclip patients and 20 (95.2%) of 21 combination therapy patients, p= 0.45. The rebleeding rates were: 4 (15.4%) of 26 hemoclip patients versus 5 (23.8%) of 21 combination therapy patients, p= 0.49. Overall, the length of hospital stay, units of blood transfused, surgery rates, and mortality were not different. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial of endoscopic hemoclips versus combination therapy in the nonvariceal upper GI bleeding, the efficiency, efficacy, and complications of the two treatment modalities were not significantly different.     

Clips for the prevention and treatment of postpolypectomy bleeding (hemoclips in polypectomy).

INTRODUCTION: The most accurate method for the prevention and treatment of complications after polypectomy has not been well defined. The prophylactic use of hemoclips may reduce the risk of bleeding, mainly in pedunculated big polyps. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of hemoclips in the prophylaxis and treatment of bleeding after endoscopic polypectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 223 consecutive endoscopic polypectomies performed in our Endoscopy Unit between january and october 2001. Hemoclips were routinely used only for large polyps (15 to 40 mm); all of them were located in the colon except one, a gastric polyp. RESULTS: From a total of 223 polypectomies (215 patients), hemoclips were used for 34 (15.2%), in 30 of them just before and in 4 just after polypectomy. When used prophylactically no complication was observed, except one mild bleeding episode (3.3%) that stopped with the placing of a second hemoclip. The therapeutic clipping (4 polypectomies) induced immediate haemostasis in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: The prophylactic use of hemoclips is associated with a very low risk of bleeding after endoscopic resection of big polyps. Therapeutic clipping is an effective measure for polypectomy-related bleeding.     

A prospective,randomized trial of endoscopic hemoclip placement and distilled water injection for treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND: Although endoscopic hemoclip therapy is widely used in the treatment of GI bleeding, there are few prospective trials that assess its efficacy. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of hemoclip placement and distilled water injection for the treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with major stigmata of ulcer hemorrhage were randomly assigned to either endoscopic hemoclip placement (n = 39) or injection with distilled water (n = 40). RESULTS: Initial hemostasis was achieved in all patients treated with hemoclips and 39 treated by distilled water injection (respectively, 100.0% vs. 97.5%; p = 1.00). Bleeding recurred in 4 and 11 of patients, respectively, in the hemoclip and water injection groups. It occurred significantly more frequently in the injection group (hemoclip, 10.3%; injection, 28.2%; p = 0.04). No major procedure-related complication occurred in either group. Emergency operations were performed in 5.1% of patients treated with hemoclips versus 12.5% of those in the water injection group (p = 0.43). Hospital days and mortality rate were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic hemoclip placement is a safe and effective hemostatic method that is superior to distilled water injection for treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer.     

Prospective evaluation of hemoclip application with injection of epinephrine in hypertonic saline solution for hemostasis in unstable patients with shock caused by upper GI bleeding

BACKGROUND: It is difficult to arrest severe upper GI bleeding with any of the available hemostatic modalities in unstable patients who are in shock, and the rates of persistent bleeding and mortality in this group remain high. This prospective study evaluated hemoclip application alone and in combination with injection of hypertonic saline solution with epinephrine in this subgroup of patients with GI bleeding. METHODS: Twenty-two patients in shock because of upper GI bleeding were enrolled and divided into 2 groups based on the response of systolic blood pressure to rapid infusion of 1000 mL of lactated Ringer's solution: an unstable shock group, in which systolic blood pressure did not stabilize at greater than 90 mm Hg, and a stable shock group, in which systolic blood pressure stabilized at greater than 90 mm Hg. Emergency endoscopy was performed in both groups; those in the stable group were treated by hemoclip application alone and those in the unstable group were treated by hemoclip application combined with injection of hypertonic saline solution with epinephrine. The following parameters were compared: vital signs on admission and after infusion of lactated Ringer's solution, hemoglobin concentration, endoscopic classification of type and site of bleeding, number of hemoclips required to arrest bleeding, volume of hypertonic saline solution with epinephrine injected, initial hemostatic rate, rate of recurrent bleeding, the need for additional preventive therapy (hemoclip application), and mortality. RESULTS: The rate of initial hemostasis was 92% in the stable shock group and 100% in the unstable shock group. Bleeding did not recur in either group. The volume of packed red cells transfused and the endotracheal intubation rate were significantly greater in the unstable shock group. Preventive application of hemoclips was performed at endoscopic follow-up 12 times in 10 patients in the stable shock group and 9 times in 7 patients in the unstable shock group. There were no deaths in either group. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic injection of hypertonic saline solution with epinephrine combined with hemoclip application provides effective hemostasis in unstable patients in shock caused by severe upper GI bleeding. The hemostatic result is comparable with that achieved by hemoclip application alone in patients with bleeding but less severe shock.     

A randomized trial comparing injection therapy with hemoclip and with injection combined with hemoclip for bleeding ulcers

BACKGROUND: A randomized comparative study was conducted of injection therapy with epinephrine-polidocanol (1%) versus hemoclip application, versus injection combined with hemoclip for bleeding peptic ulcers. METHODS: One hundred five patients were randomized and 101 could be evaluated (46 had active spurting or oozing of blood; 55 a visible vessel). Patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 treatment modalities during endoscopy performed within 12 hours of admission. Endoscopy was repeated after 1 day or at recurrence of bleeding and before discharge. In case of recurrent bleeding, patients were retreated with the same modality. RESULTS: Initial failure or the rate of early recurrence of bleeding was highest (but not statistically significant) in the hemoclip group (13/35; 37%), versus the injection (5/34; 15%) and combination (8/32; 25%) groups. Overall failure was significantly (p = 0.01) different among the 3 groups with the highest rate in the hemoclip group (12/35; 34%), versus the injection (2/34; 6%) and combination therapy (8/32; 25%) groups. The use of hemoclips alone appeared to fail because of difficulty with hemoclip placement and incomplete vessel compression. Complications included 1 perforation in the injection group and possibly 1 case of septic arthritis in the combination therapy group. CONCLUSION: In this study, endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers with the hemoclip was inferior overall to injection therapy.     

无痛肠镜下行肠息肉高频电凝切除术80例临床疗效观察

目的 分析无痛肠镜下行肠息肉高频电凝切除术的临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析2012年1月-2013年1月湖北省随州市中心医院收治的在无痛肠镜下行肠息肉高频电凝切除术80例患者的临床资料,评价无痛肠镜下行肠息肉高频电凝切除术的临床疗效.结果 一次性切除息肉共78枚.1例巨大息肉分2次切除,1例摘除3枚息肉,所有患者均未出现并发症.结论 无痛肠镜下行肠息肉高频电凝切除术安全、有效,可避免对患者行开腹手术,对患者创伤小,并发症的发生率极低,值得在临床上广泛推广使用,已成为目前临床上医师治疗肠息肉患者的首选方法.     

Endoscopic clipping versus injection and thermo-coagulation in the treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Hemoclips, injection therapy and thermocoagulation (heater probe or electrocoagulation) are the most commonly used types of endoscopic hemostasis for the control of non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding. AIM: To compare the efficacy of hemoclips versus injection or thermocoagulation in endoscopic hemostasis by pooling data from the literature. Method: Publications in the English literature (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) as well as abstracts in major international conferences were searched using the keywords "hemoclips" and "bleeding", and 15 trials fulfilling the search criteria were found. Outcome measures included: initial hemostasis (after endoscopic intervention); recurrent bleeding; definitive hemostasis (no recurrent bleeding until the end of follow-up); the requirement for surgical intervention; and all-cause mortality. The heterogeneity of trials was examined and the effects were pooled by meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 1156 patients recruited in the 15 studies, 390 were randomly assigned to receive clips alone, 242 received clips combined with injection, 359 received injection alone, and 165 received thermocoagulation with or without injection. Definitive hemostasis was higher with hemoclips (86.5%) than injection (75.4%; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.30), or endoscopic clips with injection (88.5%) compared with injections alone (78.1%; RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.23), leading to a reduced requirement for surgery but no difference in mortality. Compared with thermocoagulation, there was no improvement in definitive hemostasis with clips (81.5% versus 81.2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31). These estimates were robust in sensitivity analyses. There was also no difference between clips and thermocoagulation in rebleeding, the need for surgery and mortality. The reported locations of failed hemoclip applications included posterior wall of duodenal bulb, posterior wall of gastric body and lesser curve of the stomach. CONCLUSION: Successful application of hemoclips is superior to injection alone but comparable to thermocoagulation in producing definitive hemostasis. There was no difference in all-cause mortality irrespective of the modalities of endoscopic treatment.     

The Prophylactic Placement of Hemoclips to Prevent Delayed Post-polypectomy Bleeding: An Unnecessary Practice? A Case Control Study

Background

With the recent, widespread availability of endoscopic hemoclips, it has become common clinical practice to apply hemoclips to some non-bleeding polypectomy sites “prophylactically” to prevent delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). Few published data support this practice, however.

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare rates of delayed PPB in matched patients who had polypectomies performed with and without the prophylactic placement of hemoclips.

Methods

We reviewed medical records of patients who had elective colonoscopy at our VA Medical Center between July 2008 and December 2009. We identified patients who had hemoclips applied prophylactically (cases) and compared their rate of delayed PPB within 30 days to that of patients who had polypectomy without hemoclipping (controls). Controls were matched 1:1 to cases based on age and on factors known to contribute to the risk of PPB including polyp size, morphology, technique of polyp removal, number of polyps removed, and use of anticoagulants.

Results

We identified 184 patients (cases) who underwent prophylactic hemoclipping and 184 well-matched controls. An average of 3.8 polyps per patient were removed in the case group compared to 3.3 polyps per patient in controls (p = 0.6). Delayed PPB occurred in three patients in the prophylactic hemoclip group and in one patient in the control group (1.6 vs. 0.5 %, p = 0.62).

Conclusions

We found no significant difference in the rate of delayed PPB between patients who had prophylactic hemoclipping of polypectomy sites and a well-matched control group of patients who had polypectomy without prophylactic hemoclipping. These data call into question the expensive practice of prophylactic hemoclipping.

     

Endoscopic mucosal resection for colonic non-polypoid neoplasms

BACKGROUND: Colonic neoplastic lesions can be classified morphologically into polypoid and non-polypoid types. Non-polypoid lesions have a higher malignant potential than polypoid lesions. Removing these lesions and obtaining integral specimen for histopathology evaluation during colonoscopy examination is an important task. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an alternative to surgery for removing of non-polypoid lesions of the GI tract. This study assessed the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of EMR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From October 2000 to October 2003 during the routine colonoscopy performed at one medical center, identified 152 non-polypoid colonic neoplasms in 149 patients (92 males, 57 females) were found. The mean patient age was 57.8 +/- 15.5 yr (range 32-80 yr). EMR was performed for lesions suspected of being neoplastic tumors via magnification colonoscopy with the indigo carmine dye spray method. The lesions were removed via EMR with pure cutting current after which hemoclips were applied to the resected wounds. RESULTS: The study identified 40 flat type lesions, 106 lateral spreading tumors, and 6 depressed lesions that were completely resected. The mean size of lesions was 19.4 +/- 10.3 mm (range 6-60 mm). Histological findings were 4 adenocarcinomas, 59 with high-grade adenoma/dysplasia, and 89 with low-grade adenoma/dysplasia. Two patients experienced bleeding immediately following EMR, while adequate hemostasis was achieved using hemoclips. Neither delayed bleeding nor perforation developed following EMR. CONCLUSION: EMR by using pure cutting current and hemoclip is a useful method for obtaining integral specimen for accurate pathologic assessment. This method provides a safe and minimally invasive technique managing of colonic non-polypoid lesions.     

Randomized controlled study of 3 different types of hemoclips for hemostasis of bleeding canine acute gastric ulcers

BACKGROUND: Mechanical closure of bleeding vessels is clinically appealing, and several types of hemoclips are now marketed for endoscopic hemostasis of nonvariceal lesions. No comparative data have been reported on ease of clip placement, hemostasis efficacy, or clip retention rates on bleeding ulcers. OBJECTIVE: To compare 3 different types of hemoclips for hemostasis of bleeding ulcers. DESIGN: Randomized controlled study. SUBJECTS: Seven adult dogs with prehepatic portal hypertension were heparinized, and acute gastric ulcers were made with jumbo biopsy forceps. Animals had oral proton pump inhibitors daily and weekly endoscopies to quantitate clip retention and ulcer healing. INTERVENTIONS: Bleeding ulcers were randomized in pairs (2 for each treatment/dog) to endoscopic hemoclip treatment or control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Initial times and success of deployment, hemostasis efficacy, clip retention rates, and ulcer healing during endoscopic follow-ups. RESULTS: There was no difference in initial hemostasis rates of hemoclips, and no major complications occurred. Ulcer healing times were faster (Resolution Clip [RC] or TriClip [TC]) or similar (QuickClip2 [QC]) to controls. Clip retention at 1 week was significantly less with TC and, at 3 to 7 weeks, was significantly higher with RC. CONCLUSIONS: (1) For the 3 hemoclip devices, initial hemostasis rates were 100%, but all devices required similar learning time to place clips successfully. (2) Short-term retention rates of TC were significantly less than QC or RC. (3) Long-term clip retention was significantly higher with RC. (4) All 3 hemoclips were safe, and none interfered with ulcer healing.