Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10261/201392
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
SHARE CORE BASE | |
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE | |
Título: | Comparative study of electrical and rheological properties of different solutions used in endoscopic mucosal resection |
Autor: | Bon, Ignacio; Bartolí, Ramón; Cano-Sarabia, Mary CSIC ORCID; Ossa, Napoleón de la; Moreno de Vega, Vicente; Marín, Ingrid; Boix, Jaume; Lorenzo‐Zúñiga, Vicente | Palabras clave: | Electrical property Endoscopic mucosal resection Endoscopic submucosal dissection Rheological property Submucosal injection |
Fecha de publicación: | may-2019 | Editor: | John Wiley & Sons | Citación: | Digestive Endoscopy 31(3): 276-282 (2019) | Resumen: | Background and Aim: The study of electrical and rheological properties of solutions to carry out endoscopic resection procedures could determinate the best candidate. An ex vivo study with porcine stomachs was conducted to analyze electrical resistivity (R) and rheological properties (temperature, viscosity, height and lasting of the cushion) of different substances used in these techniques. Methods: Tested solutions were: 0.9% saline (S), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), Gliceol (GC), hyaluronic acid 2% (HA), Pluronic-F127 20% (PL), saline with 10% glucose (GS), Gelaspan (GP), Covergel-BiBio (TB) and PRP with TB (PRP+TB). Measurements of electrical and rheological properties were done at 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 min after submucosal injection. Results: Solutions showed a wide variability of transepithelial R after submucosal injection. Substances able to maintain the highest R 60 min postinjection were TB (7 × 10 Ω), HA (7 × 10 Ω) and PL (7 × 10 Ω). Protective solutions against deep thermal injury (Tª lower than 60°C) were PL (47.6°C), TB (55°C) and HA (56.63°C). Shortest time to carry out resections were observed with GC (17.66″), PRP (20.3″) and GS (23.45″). Solutions with less cushion decrease (<25%) after 60 min were TB (11.74%), PL (18.63%) and PRP (22.12%). Conclusions: Covergel-BiBio, PL and HA were the best solutions with long-term protective effects (transepithelial R, lower thermal injury and less cushion decrease). Solutions with quicker resection time were GC, PRP and GS. | Versión del editor: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/den.13297 | URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/201392 | DOI: | 10.1111/den.13297 | Identificadores: | doi: 10.1111/den.13297 e-issn: 1443-1661 issn: 0915-5635 |
Aparece en las colecciones: | (IIBB) Artículos |
Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero | Descripción | Tamaño | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|---|
accesoRestringido.pdf | 15,38 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizar/Abrir |
CORE Recommender
SCOPUSTM
Citations
4
checked on 12-abr-2024
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
4
checked on 25-feb-2024
Page view(s)
133
checked on 22-abr-2024
Download(s)
25
checked on 22-abr-2024
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Altmetric
NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.