Published online Aug 7, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i29.5422
Peer-review started: February 4, 2017
First decision: March 16, 2017
Revised: March 31, 2017
Accepted: June 19, 2017
Article in press: June 19, 2017
Published online: August 7, 2017
Processing time: 192 Days and 1.1 Hours
To investigated the hemostatic ability of the S and F1-10 methods in clinical and ex vivo studies.
The hemostatic abilities of the two methods were analyzed retrospectively in all six gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection cases. The treated vessel diameter, compressed vessel frequency, and bleeding frequency after cutting the vessels were noted by the recorded videos. The coagulation mechanism of the two power settings was evaluated using the data recording program and histological examination on macro- and microscopic levels in the ex vivo experiments using porcine tissues.
F1-10 method showed a significantly better hemostatic ability for vessels ≥ 2 mm in diameter and a trend of overall better coagulation effect, evaluated by the bleeding rate after cutting the vessels. F1-10 method could sustain electrical current longer and effectively coagulate the tissue wider and deeper than the S method in the porcine model.
F1-10 method is suggested to achieve a stronger hemostatic effect than the S method in clinical procedures and ex vivo models.
Core tip: The prevention of bleeding during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is one of the most important factors in safe and successful tumor removal. We investigated the difference in bleeding rates between S method and F1-10 method in stomach ESD. The investigation suggests that F1-10 method can achieve a stronger hemostatic effect than S method for large vessels. In addition, we investigated the difference of the hemostatic strength and mechanism using ex vivo model. F1-10 method could sustain electrical current longer and effectively coagulate wider and deeper areas of tissue than S method, resulting in a strong hemostatic effect.