Premium
Comparative study of electrical and rheological properties of different solutions used in endoscopic mucosal resection
Author(s) -
Bon Ignacio,
Bartolí Ramón,
CanoSarabia Mary,
Ossa Napoleón,
Vega Vicente Moreno,
Marín Ingrid,
Boix Jaume,
LorenzoZúñiga Vicente
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
digestive endoscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.5
H-Index - 56
eISSN - 1443-1661
pISSN - 0915-5635
DOI - 10.1111/den.13297
Subject(s) - hyaluronic acid , saline , rheology , medicine , in vivo , resection , viscosity , biomedical engineering , surgery , composite material , materials science , anatomy , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
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 4 Ω), HA (7 × 10 4 Ω) and PL (7 × 10 4 Ω). Protective solutions against deep thermal injury ( T ª 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 .