Fixation of intestinal tissue using a novel endoscopic device.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess the utility and strength of a novel endoscopic fixation device, Brace-Bar, in the large intestine and compare the strength with other currently available techniques. The primary outcome was the strength of fixation using 3 endoscopic methods: BraceBar, suture, and commercially available tackers. The hypothesis is that the use of the BraceBar will result in fixation strength similar to the strength of the other methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An ex vivo porcine model was used to test 3 fixation methods: Group 1, BraceBar (Prototype); Group 2, ProTack (AutoSuture); and Group 3, TI-CRON suture (Syneture). Large-bowel segments were fixed to abdominal wall tissue at 20 cm from the distal end of the rectum. Primary endpoint was pull away strength. A total of 45 trials of each method were performed. Comparison between the groups was done using JMP 7.0. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in strength between the BraceBar group and the suture group ( P = .1236). The BraceBar method demonstrated significantly higher strength compared with the tacker group (P = .003). CONCLUSION: Use of the BraceBar for fixation of the large bowel is at least comparable with suture fixation, making clinical use of BraceBar a reasonable consideration. Use of this device may make endoscopic repair of certain intestinal conditions feasible.

[Is the prophylactic antibiotic therapy with Imipenem effective for patients with pancreatic necrosis?]. / Es la antibióticoterapia profiláctica con Imipenem efectiva en los pacientes con necrosis pancreática?

OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the capacity of Imipenem as a prophylactic treatment for decreasing the number of infected necrosis and surgeries, as well as for diminishing septic complications and the mortality rate among patients with severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: from May 2005 to December 2007 a prospective randomized study was conducted in order to evaluate the efficacy of a prophylactic antibiotic therapy in patients with pancreatic necrosis. During this time period 58 patients entered the study protocol. Patients were divided in two groups; the first one underwent antibiotic therapy with Imipenem while the second group received no prophylactic treatment at all. All patients received early enteral nutrition. RESULTS: both studied groups had comparable age, gender ratio, and C.R.P and necrosis percentages. When comparing general morbidity in both groups no difference was found between the group receiving a prophylactic antibiotic and the group that did not receive it (58% vs. 56%). Moreover, when the septic complications were evaluated, it was confirmed that these were more frequent among the group of patients receiving Imipenem (29%), in comparison to the group that did not received antibiotics (15%). 12.5% of the patients that received Imipenem developed pancreatic necrosis infection, while said infection only appeared in 6% of the patients in the group that did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis; nevertheless, none of the comparisons reached statistical significance. The number of patients who required surgery was similar in both groups. When comparing the hospital stay, it was observed that this was longer among the patients receiving prophylactic therapy. No patient died during the study. CONCLUSION: The present study finds no benefits in the use of antibiotic therapy with Imipenem regarding the risk of developing pancreatic necrosis infection and septic complications, and neither when trying to reduce the number of surgeries among patients with severe acute pancreatitis with necrosis.