title: A prospective, randomized trial of esophageal submucosal tunnel closure with a stent versus no closure to secure a transesophageal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery access site.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Secure esophagotomy closure methods are a critical element in the advancement of transesophageal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) procedures.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the clinical outcomes in swine receiving an esophageal stent or no stent after a submucosal tunnel NOTES access procedure.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 10 Yorkshire swine.
  
  
  METHODS
  Academic center.
  
  
  METHODS
  An endoscopic mucosectomy device was used to create an esophageal mucosal defect. An endoscope was advanced through a submucosal tunnel into the mediastinum and thorax, and diagnostic mediastinoscopy and thoracoscopy were performed. Ten animals were randomized to no stenting (n = 5) or stenting (n = 5) with a prototype small-intestine submucosa-covered stent.
  
  
  METHODS
  Gross and histologic appearance of the mucosectomy and esophagotomy sites as well as clinical outcomes.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was a significant difference in the overall procedure time between the animals that received a stent (35.0 min, range 27-46.0 min) and those with no closure (19.0 min, range 17-32 min) (P value = .018). The unstented group achieved endoscopic and histologic evidence of complete re-epithelialization and healing (100%) at the mucosectomy site compared with the stented group (20%, P = .048). Stent migration into the stomach occurred in two swine. Both groups had complete closure of the submucosal tunnel and well-healed esophagotomy sites.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Animal study, small number of subjects.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The placement of a covered esophageal stent significantly interferes with mucosectomy site healing.
authors.affiliation: Gastroenterology Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
authors.forename: Brian G
authors.initials: BG
authors.lastname: Turner
authors.forename: Min-Chan
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Denise W
authors.initials: DW
authors.lastname: Gee
authors.forename: Abdulmetin
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Dursun
authors.forename: Mari
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Mino-Kenudson
authors.forename: Edward S
authors.initials: ES
authors.lastname: Huang
authors.forename: Patricia
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Sylla
authors.forename: David W
authors.initials: DW
authors.lastname: Rattner
authors.forename: William R
authors.initials: WR
authors.lastname: Brugge
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D004195:Disease Models, Animal; D004210:Dissection / Q000379:methods*; D004947:Esophagus / Q000601:surgery*; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D007413:Intestinal Mucosa / Q000601:surgery*; D008481:Mediastinoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects; D057605:Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery / Q000379:methods*; D011182:Postoperative Care / Q000379:methods; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011897:Random Allocation; D015607:Stents; D013552:Swine; D013906:Thoracoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects*; D016896:Treatment Outcome