Safety of endoscopic procedures with monopolar versus bipolar instruments in an ex vivo porcine model

Kensuke Shinmura, Hiroaki Ikematsu, Motohiro Kojima, Hiroshi Nakamura, Shozo Osera, Yusuke Yoda, Keisuke Hori, Yasuhiro Oono, Atsushi Ochiai, Tomonori Yano, Kensuke Shinmura, Hiroaki Ikematsu, Motohiro Kojima, Hiroshi Nakamura, Shozo Osera, Yusuke Yoda, Keisuke Hori, Yasuhiro Oono, Atsushi Ochiai, Tomonori Yano

Abstract

Background: Monopolar instruments are generally used in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Bipolar instruments have previously been reported to be as safe as monopolar instruments. We sought to compare the safety of the monopolar and bipolar snare and hemostatic forceps in an animal model.

Methods: We created 5-mm, 10-mm, and 15-mm target lesions on an ex vivo porcine rectum. Two lesions of each size were resected via monopolar polypectomy (M-P), monopolar EMR (M-E), bipolar polypectomy (B-P), and bipolar EMR (B-E). We performed a pathological evaluation of the conditions of perforation and the effects of burning on the tissues. In addition, we burned the muscularis propria covered with submucosal layer using monopolar and bipolar hemostatic forceps and performed pathological evaluations.

Results: Polypectomy and EMR were performed in a total of 24 target lesions. A perforation was found on histology in one case of M-P and one case of M-E after removing target lesions of 15 mm in diameter. There were no perforations during endoscopic resection using the bipolar snare. The thermal denaturation in B-P did not reach the muscularis propria layer regardless of the size of the target lesion. Although thermal damage after using monopolar hemostatic forceps was extensive, thermal denaturation was only seen on the surface of the submucosal layer when bipolar hemostatic forceps were used.

Conclusions: Bipolar instruments cause less damage to the tissue than monopolar instruments. Our results also suggest that bipolar instruments may be safer than monopolar instruments in endoscopic procedures for colorectal lesions.

Keywords: Bipolar instrument; Colorectal endoscopic resection; Monopolar instrument.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Histopathology (H-E stain) of the target lesion. (a) Distance is from the muscularis propria to the thermal denaturation of the submucosal layer. (b) Area shows tissue damage to the muscularis propria. Dist, distance
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Histopathology (H-E stain) of the target lesion with a diameter of 15 mm removed with a monopolar snare. (a) Histopathology after polypectomy using a monopolar snare. (b) Histopathology after EMR using a monopolar snare. Both A and B show cases with perforation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Histopathology (H-E stain) of the 15-mm target lesion removed with a bipolar snare. (a) Histopathology after polypectomy using a bipolar snare. (b) Histopathology after EMR using a bipolar snare
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Exposed muscularis propria burned by monopolar hemostatic forceps or bipolar hemostatic forceps. (a) The three burning points of the upper row were made using bipolar forceps, and the thee burning points of the lower row were made using monopolar forceps. (b) Histopathology of the burning point using monopolar hemostatic forceps (15 s). (c) Histopathology of the burning point using bipolar hemostatic forceps (15 s)

References

    1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O'Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–1981. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199312303292701.
    1. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Hankey BF, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:687–696. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1100370.
    1. Takizawa K, Oda I, Gotoda T, Yokoi C, Matsuda T, Saito Y, et al. Routine coagulation of visible vessels may prevent delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection--an analysis of risk factors. Endoscopy. 2008;40:179–183. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-995530.
    1. Saraya T, Ikematsu H, Fu KI, Tsunoda C, Yoda Y, Oono Y, et al. Evaluation of complications related to therapeutic colonoscopy using the bipolar snare. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:533–540. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1914-8.
    1. Sawhney MS, Salfiti N, Nelson DB, Lederle FA, Bond JH. Risk factors for severe delayed postpolypectomy bleeding. Endoscopy. 2008;40:115–119. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-966959.
    1. Carpenter S, Petersen BT, Chuttani R, Croffie J, DiSario J, Liu J, et al. Polypectomy devices. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:741–749. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.10.004.
    1. Wadas DD, Sanowski RA. Complications of the hot biopsy forceps technique. Gastrointest Endosc. 1988;34:32–37. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(88)71226-2.
    1. Sorbi D, Norton I, Conio M, Balm R, Zinsmeister A, Gostout CJ. Postpolypectomy lower GI bleeding: descriptive analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:690–696. doi: 10.1067/mge.2000.105773.
    1. Repici A, Hassan C, Vitetta E, Ferrara E, Manes G, Gullotti G, et al. Safety of cold polypectomy for <10mm polyps at colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2012;44:27–31. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1291387.
    1. Conway JD, Adler DG, Diehl DL, Farraye FA, Kantsevoy SV, Kaul V, et al. Endoscopic hemostatic devices. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:987–996. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.12.251.
    1. Fujishiro M, Abe N, Endo M, Kawahara Y, Shimoda R, Nagata S, et al. Retrospective multicenter study concerning electrocautery forceps with soft coagulation for nonmalignant gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding in Japan. Dig Endosc. 2010;22(Suppl 1):S15–S18. doi: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2010.00962.x.
    1. Soon M-S, Wu S-S, Chen Y-Y, Fan C-S, Lin OS. Monopolar coagulation versus conventional endoscopic treatment for high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:323–329.
    1. Sugawa C, Masuyama H. An endoscopic monopolar hemostatic electrocoagulation forceps (grasping coagulator) Gastrointest Endosc. 1986;32:114–116. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(86)71772-0.
    1. Rey JF, Beilenhoff U, Neumann CS, Dumonceau JM. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline: the use of electrosurgical units. Endoscopy. 2010;42:764–772. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1255594.
    1. Slivka A, Bosco JJ, Barkun AN, Isenberg GA, Nguyen CC, Petersen BT, et al. Electrosurgical generators: MAY 2003. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:656–660. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02012-1.
    1. Panteris V, Haringsma J, Kuipers EJ. Colonoscopy perforation rate, mechanisms and outcome: from diagnostic to therapeutic colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2009;41:941–951. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1215179.
    1. Macrae FA, Tan KG, Williams CB. Towards safer colonoscopy: a report on the complications of 5000 diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopies. Gut. 1983;24:376–383. doi: 10.1136/gut.24.5.376.
    1. Panish JF, Berci G. Non-invasive colonoscopic polypectomy. Review of 100 cases. West J Med. 1974;121:6–9.
    1. Mahadeva S, Rembacken BJ. Standard "inject and cut" endoscopic mucosal resection technique is practical and effective in the management of superficial colorectal neoplasms. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:417–422. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-9983-z.
    1. Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T, Fukunaga S, Sakamoto T, Uraoka T, et al. Clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:343–352. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0562-8.
    1. Williams CB, de Peyer RC. Bipolar snare polypectomy--a safer technique for electrocoagulation of large polyp stalks. Endoscopy. 1979;11:47–50. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1098324.
    1. Tucker RD, Platz CE, Sievert CE, Vennes JA, Silvis SE. In vivo evaluation of monopolar versus bipolar electrosurgical polypectomy snares. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85:1386–1390.
    1. Chino A, Karasawa T, Uragami N, Endo Y, Takahashi H, Fujita R. A comparison of depth of tissue injury caused by different modes of electrosurgical current in a pig colon model. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:374–379. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02712-3.
    1. Hokama A, Uehara T, Nakayoshi T, Uezu Y, Tokuyama K, Kinjo F, et al. Utility of endoscopic hemoclipping for colonic diverticular bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92:543–546.
    1. Kaltenbach T, Watson R, Shah J, Friedland S, Sato T, Shergill A, et al. Colonoscopy with clipping is useful in the diagnosis and treatment of diverticular bleeding. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:131–137. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.10.029.
    1. Metz AJ, Bourke MJ, Moss A, Williams SJ, Swan MP, Byth K. Factors that predict bleeding following endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic lesions. Endoscopy. 2011;43:506–511. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256346.
    1. Kataoka M, Kawai T, Yagi K, Tachibana C, Tachibana H, Sugimoto H, et al. Clinical evaluation of emergency endoscopic hemostasis with bipolar forceps in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Dig Endosc. 2010;22:151–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2010.00949.x.
    1. Savides TJ, See JA, Jensen DM, Jutabha R, Machicado GA, Hirabayashi K. Randomized controlled study of injury in the canine right colon from simultaneous biopsy and coagulation with different hot biopsy forceps. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:573–578. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(95)70013-7.
    1. Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M, Tanaka N, Sano K, Graham DY. Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: a prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:417–423. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.08.040.
    1. Suzuki S, Gotoda T, Kusano C, Ikehara H, Sugita A, Yamauchi M, et al. Width and depth of resection for small colorectal polyps: hot versus cold snare polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:1095–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.10.041.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe