Differences in fluid removal of different open-pore elements for endoscopic negative pressure therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract
Abstract Endoscopic negative pressure therapy is an effective treatment strategy for various defects of the gastrointestinal tract. The functional principle is based on an open-pore element, which is placed around a perforated drainage tube and connected to a vacuum source. The resulting open-pore s...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2022-08-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17700-3 |
| _version_ | 1811340283381547008 |
|---|---|
| author | Kai Tobias Jansen Jürgen Hetzel Carola Schulte Nurgül Düzenli Stefano Fusco Emanuel Zerabruck Eva Schmider Nisar P. Malek Alfred Königsrainer Dietmar Stüker Christoph R. Werner Dörte Wichmann |
| author_facet | Kai Tobias Jansen Jürgen Hetzel Carola Schulte Nurgül Düzenli Stefano Fusco Emanuel Zerabruck Eva Schmider Nisar P. Malek Alfred Königsrainer Dietmar Stüker Christoph R. Werner Dörte Wichmann |
| author_sort | Kai Tobias Jansen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Endoscopic negative pressure therapy is an effective treatment strategy for various defects of the gastrointestinal tract. The functional principle is based on an open-pore element, which is placed around a perforated drainage tube and connected to a vacuum source. The resulting open-pore suction device can undergo endoluminal or intracavitary placement. Different open-pore suction devices are used for endoscopic negative pressure therapy of upper gastrointestinal tract defects. Comparative analyses for features and properties of these devices are still lacking. Eight different (six hand-made devices and two commercial devices) open-pore suction devices for endoscopic negative pressure therapy of the upper gastrointestinal tract were used, amount fluid removed was evaluated. The evaluation parameters included the time to reach the target pressure, the time required to remove 100 ml of water, and the material resistance of the device. All open-pore suction devices are able to aspirate the target volume of fluids. The time to reach the target volume varied considerably. Target negative pressure was not achieved with all open-pore suction devices during the aspiration of fluids; however, there was no negative effect on suction efficiency. Of the measurement data, material resistance could be calculated for six open-pore elements. We present a simple experimental, nonphysiologically setup for open-pore suction devices used for endoscopic negative pressure therapy. The expected quantity of fluids secreted into the treated organs should affect open-pore suction device for endoscopic negative pressure therapy. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T18:39:36Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-31ed2065d9a5423293d74c1cfb0369cd |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T18:39:36Z |
| publishDate | 2022-08-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-31ed2065d9a5423293d74c1cfb0369cd2022-12-22T02:34:46ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222022-08-011211610.1038/s41598-022-17700-3Differences in fluid removal of different open-pore elements for endoscopic negative pressure therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tractKai Tobias Jansen0Jürgen Hetzel1Carola Schulte2Nurgül Düzenli3Stefano Fusco4Emanuel Zerabruck5Eva Schmider6Nisar P. Malek7Alfred Königsrainer8Dietmar Stüker9Christoph R. Werner10Dörte Wichmann11Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of TübingenDepartment of Internal Medicine VIII, Pulmonology and Oncology, University Hospital of TübingenDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of TübingenDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of TübingenDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Gastrointestinal Oncology, Infectiology and Geriatrics, University Hospital of TübingenInterdisciplinary Endoscopic Unit, University Hospital of TübingenInterdisciplinary Endoscopic Unit, University Hospital of TübingenDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Gastrointestinal Oncology, Infectiology and Geriatrics, University Hospital of TübingenDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of TübingenDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of TübingenDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Gastrointestinal Oncology, Infectiology and Geriatrics, University Hospital of TübingenDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of TübingenAbstract Endoscopic negative pressure therapy is an effective treatment strategy for various defects of the gastrointestinal tract. The functional principle is based on an open-pore element, which is placed around a perforated drainage tube and connected to a vacuum source. The resulting open-pore suction device can undergo endoluminal or intracavitary placement. Different open-pore suction devices are used for endoscopic negative pressure therapy of upper gastrointestinal tract defects. Comparative analyses for features and properties of these devices are still lacking. Eight different (six hand-made devices and two commercial devices) open-pore suction devices for endoscopic negative pressure therapy of the upper gastrointestinal tract were used, amount fluid removed was evaluated. The evaluation parameters included the time to reach the target pressure, the time required to remove 100 ml of water, and the material resistance of the device. All open-pore suction devices are able to aspirate the target volume of fluids. The time to reach the target volume varied considerably. Target negative pressure was not achieved with all open-pore suction devices during the aspiration of fluids; however, there was no negative effect on suction efficiency. Of the measurement data, material resistance could be calculated for six open-pore elements. We present a simple experimental, nonphysiologically setup for open-pore suction devices used for endoscopic negative pressure therapy. The expected quantity of fluids secreted into the treated organs should affect open-pore suction device for endoscopic negative pressure therapy.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17700-3 |
| spellingShingle | Kai Tobias Jansen Jürgen Hetzel Carola Schulte Nurgül Düzenli Stefano Fusco Emanuel Zerabruck Eva Schmider Nisar P. Malek Alfred Königsrainer Dietmar Stüker Christoph R. Werner Dörte Wichmann Differences in fluid removal of different open-pore elements for endoscopic negative pressure therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract Scientific Reports |
| title | Differences in fluid removal of different open-pore elements for endoscopic negative pressure therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract |
| title_full | Differences in fluid removal of different open-pore elements for endoscopic negative pressure therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract |
| title_fullStr | Differences in fluid removal of different open-pore elements for endoscopic negative pressure therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differences in fluid removal of different open-pore elements for endoscopic negative pressure therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract |
| title_short | Differences in fluid removal of different open-pore elements for endoscopic negative pressure therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract |
| title_sort | differences in fluid removal of different open pore elements for endoscopic negative pressure therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17700-3 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kaitobiasjansen differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT jurgenhetzel differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT carolaschulte differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT nurgulduzenli differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT stefanofusco differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT emanuelzerabruck differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT evaschmider differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT nisarpmalek differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT alfredkonigsrainer differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT dietmarstuker differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT christophrwerner differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract AT dortewichmann differencesinfluidremovalofdifferentopenporeelementsforendoscopicnegativepressuretherapyintheuppergastrointestinaltract |