Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/201392
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Título

Comparative study of electrical and rheological properties of different solutions used in endoscopic mucosal resection

AutorBon, Ignacio; Bartolí, Ramón; Cano-Sarabia, Mary CSIC ORCID; Ossa, Napoleón de la; Moreno de Vega, Vicente; Marín, Ingrid; Boix, Jaume; Lorenzo‐Zúñiga, Vicente
Palabras claveElectrical property
Endoscopic mucosal resection
Endoscopic submucosal dissection
Rheological property
Submucosal injection
Fecha de publicaciónmay-2019
EditorJohn Wiley & Sons
CitaciónDigestive Endoscopy 31(3): 276-282 (2019)
ResumenBackground 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 editorhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/den.13297
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/201392
DOI10.1111/den.13297
Identificadoresdoi: 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.pdf15,38 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Mostrar el registro completo

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.