Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(06): E790-E795
DOI: 10.1055/a-1373-4162
Original article

Spray coagulation with snare-tip versus argon plasma coagulation: An ex vivo study evaluating tissue effects

Andrew Fetz
1   Gastroenterology Department, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
,
David Farnell
2   Pathology Department, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
,
Shayan Irani
3   Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, United States
,
S. Ian Gan
1   Gastroenterology Department, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is an effective and safe modality for many gastrointestinal conditions requiring hemostasis and/or ablation. However, it can be quite costly. A potentially more cost-effective alternative is snare-tip spray coagulation (SC). This study aimed to determine whether SC would be a safe and effective alternative to APC using an ex-vivo model.

Methods Using two resected porcine stomach, 36 randomized gastric areas were ablated for 2 seconds with either APC at 1.0 L/min 20 W (APC20) and 1.4 L/min 40 W (APC40) or SC with Effect 2 60 W (SC60) and 80 W (SC80) from 3 mm. Extent of tissue injury was then analyzed histopathologically.

Results The mean coagulation depth was 790 ± 159 µm and 825 ± 467 µm for SC60 (n = 9) and SC80 (n = 8), respectively. This was compared to 539 ± 151 µm for APC20 (n = 8) and 779 ± 267 µm for APC40 (n = 9). Mean difference (MD) in coagulation depth between SC60 and APC40 was 12 µm (95 % confidence interval [CI], –191 to 214 µm; P = 0.91) and was 47 µm (95 %CI, –162 to 255 µm; P = 0.81) between SC80 and APC40. There was a greater depth of injury with APC40 (MD, 240 µm; 95 %CI, 62 to 418 µm; P = 0.04) and with SC60 (MD, 252 µm; 95 %CI, 141 to 362 µm; P = 0.004) when compared to APC20. Mean cross-sectional area of coagulation was 2.39 ± 0.852 mm² for SC60 and 2.54 ± 1.83 mm² for SC80 compared to 1.22 ± 0.569 mm² for APC20 and 1.99 ± 0.769 mm² for APC40. Seventy-eight percent reached the muscularis mucosa (MM) and 11 % the submucosa in the SC60 group compared to 50 % and 38 % in SC80 and 56 % and 11 % in APC40, respectively. Thirty-eight percent of APC20 specimens reached the MM. The muscularis propria was unaffected.

Conclusions This small ex-vivo study suggests that SC60 and SC80 may be safe alternatives to APC40 with comparable coagulation depths and area effects.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 20 August 2020

Accepted: 09 December 2020

Article published online:
27 May 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Vargo JJ. Clinical applications of the argon plasma coagulator. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 81-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mendonca EQ, de Oliveira JF, Maluf-Filho F. Argon plasma coagulation and radiofrequency ablation in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 18: 203-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Weiner J, Schwartz D, Martinez M. et al. Long-term results on the efficacy of argon plasma coagulation for patients with chronic radiation proctitis after conventionally fractionated, dose-escalated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 2017; 7: e35-e42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Akhtar K, Byrne JP, Bancewicz J. et al. Argon beam plasma coagulation in the management of cancers of the esophagus and stomach. Surg Endosc 2000; 14: 1127-1130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Brooker JC, Saunders BP, Shah SG. et al. Treatment with argon plasma coagulation reduces recurrence after piecemeal resection of large sessile colonic polyps: a randomized trial and recommendations. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 371-375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wahab PJ, Mulder CJJ, Den HartogG. et al. Argon plasma coagulation in flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy: pilot experiences. Endoscopy 1997; 29: 176-181
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Watson JP, Bennett MK, Griffin SM. et al. The tissue effect of argon plasma coagulation on esophageal and gastric mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 342-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Yen HH. Gastrointestinal: Spray coagulation with snare tip as a rescue therapy to argon plasma coagulation for bleeding jejunal angioectasia. J Gastroen Hepatol 2017; 32: 1909
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Matsui N, Akahoshi K, Nakamura K. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for removal of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms: A technical review. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 4: 123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 MHRA 04080 High power electrosurgery review. 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Panos MZ, Koumi A. Argon plasma coagulation in the right and left colon: safety–risk profile of the 60W–1.2 l/min setting. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 632-641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Norton ID, Wang L, Levine SA. et al. In vivo characterization of colonic thermal injury caused by argon plasma coagulation. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 55: 631-636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Goulet CJ, DiSario JA, Emerson L. et al. In vivo evaluation of argon plasma coagulation in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 457-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar