Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
World J Gastroenterol. 2012 Dec 28;18(48):7296-301. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i48.7296.

Comparison between air and carbon dioxide insufflation in the endoscopic submucosal excavation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Author information

  • 1Department of General Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200092, China.

Abstract

AIM:

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of CO(2) insufflation compared with air insufflation in the endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

METHODS:

Sixty patients were randomized to undergo endoscopic submucosal excavation, with the CO(2) group (n = 30) and the air group (n = 30) undergoing CO(2) insufflation and air insufflation in the ESE, respectively. The end-tidal CO(2) level (pETCO(2)) was observed at 4 time points: at the beginning of ESE, at total removal of the tumors, at completed wound management, and 10 min after ESE. Additionally, the patients' experience of pain at 1, 3, 6 and 24 h after the examination was registered using a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS:

Both the CO(2) group and air group were similar in mean age, sex, body mass index (all P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in PetCO(2) values before and after the procedure (P > 0.05). However, the pain scores after the ESE at different time points in the CO(2) group decreased significantly compared with the air group (1 h: 21.2 ± 3.4 vs 61.5 ± 1.7; 3 h: 8.5 ± 0.7 vs 42.9 ± 1.3; 6 h: 4.4 ± 1.6 vs 27.6 ± 1.2; 24 h: 2.3 ± 0.4 vs 21.4 ± 0.7, P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the percentage of VAS scores of 0 in the CO(2) group after 1, 3, 6 and 24 h was significantly higher than that in the air group (60.7 ± 1.4 vs 18.9 ± 1.5, 81.5 ± 2.3 vs 20.6 ± 1.2, 89.2 ± 0.7 vs 36.8 ± 0.9, 91.3 ± 0.8 vs 63.8 ± 1.3, respectively, P < 0.05). Moreover, the condition of the CO(2) group was better than that of the air group with respect to anal exsufflation.

CONCLUSION:

Insufflation of CO(2) in the ESE of gastrointestinal stromal tumors will not cause CO(2) retention and it may significantly reduce the level of pain, thus it is safe and effective.

KEYWORDS:

Carbon dioxide insufflation; Endoscopic submucosal excavation; Gastrointestinal tract; Stromal tumor; Treatment

PMID:
23326136
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC3544033
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk