ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2023
Safety and performance evaluation of the automated helical suturing system as compared with the manual suturing platform in endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty in a porcine model.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) and gastric volume reduction techniques have been shown to achieve significant weight loss and improvement in comorbid conditions. The objective of this study was to assess the safety, applicability, and usability of a novel fully automated, operator-independent endoscopic suturing system for minimally invasive treatment of obesity in pigs. Methods: Endoscopic procedures were performed in 6 domestic swine that were subjected to an internal gastric segmentation within the stomach using the EndoZip Implant (Nitinotes Ltd, Caesarea, Israel) followed by a similar endoscopic suturing system, the OverStitch ESG Implant (Apollo Endosurgery, Austin, Tex, USA) as the reference/control item. The EndoZip and OverStitch sutures were applied in each animal at 2 adjacent sites in the stomach. After each procedure, a usability questionnaire was filled out by the physician. Three animals (group 1) were monitored for a period of 7 days and 3 animals (group 2) for a period of 28 days after the procedures. On termination, segmentation sites were inspected by gross pathology examination. Results: No clinically significant abnormal clinical signs were observed during the follow-up period. Blood tests showed normal levels, and abnormal findings were observed during gross pathology examination but were not clinically significant. The histopathologic evaluation showed the tissue reaction was very similar histologically in both the ESG and automated helical suturing system samples and within expected ranges for a foreign body reaction. All 6 automated helical suturing system suture patterns were identical, demonstrating consistent tunnel creation. Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, the automated helical suturing system was safe in this preclinical study, and further studies are required. The tissue reaction was moderate and focal and within expected ranges for a foreign body reaction (implantation of a device) in both the EndoZip and OverStitch samples.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.