Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 Sep;34(9):3845-3852.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07150-w. Epub 2019 Oct 4.

Multi-band mucosectomy for neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus: in vivo comparison between two different devices

Marco Spadaccini  1 , Pradeep Bhandari  2 , Roberta Maselli  3 , Paola Spaggiari  4 , Asma A Alkandari  2 , Lazaros Varytimiadis  2 , Rossella Semeraro  3 , Milena Di Leo  3 , Piera Alessia Galtieri  3 , Vincenzo Craviotto  3 , Laura Lamonaca  3 , Ferdinando D'Amico  3 , Simona Attardo  3 , Tatiana Brambilla  4 , Prateek Sharma  5 , Cesare Hassan  6 , Alessandro Repici  3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Multi-band mucosectomy for neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus: in vivo comparison between two different devices

Marco Spadaccini et al. Surg Endosc. 2020 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Multi-band mucosectomy (MBM) is effective and safe for Barrett's neoplasia. No studies have yet compared the efficacy and safety of the MBM devices commercially available: Duette™ (CookMedical) and Captivator™ (BostonScientific). Our aim is to compare the two devices.

Methods: This is a dual-center retrospective case-control study (Rozzano, Portsmouth) comparing efficacy, safety, and histology of resected specimens between Duette™ (DUE) and Captivator™ (CAPT). Efficacy was assessed by R0 and local recurrence (LR) rate. Bleedings, perforations, and strictures were recorded as safety outcomes. Moreover, the specimens were re-examined by two pathologists, blinded about the study group, to assess the maximum thickness of both the whole specimens and the resected submucosal layer.

Results: Seventy-six patients (38 per group) were included. The two groups did not differ in terms of baseline characteristics. R0 resection was achieved in 96.7% versus 96.3% (p = ns) and LR were recorded in 4/38 (10.5%) versus 3/38 (7.9%) in DUE and CAPT group, respectively (p = ns). Considering Duette™ versus Captivator™, 2 versus 3 patients developed a symptomatic stricture. Only one post-procedural bleeding occurred (Captivator™). Maximum medium thicknesses of specimens and of resected submucosa did not differ between the groups.

Conclusions: MBM is safe and effective for resecting visible lesions using either of the two available devices.

Keywords: Barrett’s esophagus; Endoscopic resection; Endoscopy; Esophagus; Multi-band mucosectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types