A safety maneuver for placing overtubes during endoscopic variceal ligation

Goldschmiedt, Markus; Haber, G; Kandel, Gabor; Kortan, Paul P.; Marcon, Norman E.

doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(92)70453-2

Cited by 55 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The multiligator device proved superior to the conventional banding device with respect to all time parameters examined. The time taken to perform the entire endoscopic procedure (8 minutes 25 seconds vs. 12 minutes 21 seconds, P < 0.01), the time taken to band each varix (36 seconds vs. 1 minute 36 seconds, P < 0.001) and the time taken to band all the varices (2 minutes 22 seconds vs. 5 minutes 34 seconds, P < 0.001) were all reduced (14) in the multiband group. The time taken to load the ligator device and perform the second intubation was slightly longer in the multiligator device when compared with the singleshot bander (2 minutes 51 seconds vs. 2 minutes 2 seconds, P < 0.05).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of the Ease and Safety of Variceal Ligation Using a Multiband vs. a Conventional Ligation Device

Wong

Pereira²,

McNair³

et al. 2000

Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of the Ease and Safety of Variceal Ligation Using a Multiband vs. a Conventional Ligation Device

Wong

Pereira²,

McNair³

et al. 2000

Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The singleshot mechanism of the ligation device is inherently inefficient, and makes the procedure tedious. It also requires overtube placement, associated with discomfort and complications [13][14][15] . Multiple-band ligation devices make band ligation easier and more efficient, allowing the consecutive application of 5 to 10 bands without removing the endoscope.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost saving by reloading the multiband ligator in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation: A proposal for developing countries

Abbas

Rizvi²,

Ahmed³

et al. 2008

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To assess the cost savings of reloading the multiband ligator in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) used on the same patient for subsequent sessions. METHODS:This single centre retrospective descriptive study analysed patients undergoing variceal ligation at a tertiary care centre between 1st January, 2003 and 30th June, 2006. The multiband ligator was reloaded with six hemorrhoidal bands using hemorrhoidal ligator for the second and subsequent sessions. Analysis of cost saving was done for the number of follow-up sessions for the variceal eradication. RESULTS:A total of 261 patients underwent at least one session of endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation between January 2003 and June 2006. Out of 261, 108 patients (males 67) agreed to follow the eradication program and underwent repeated sessions. A total of 304 sessions was performed with 2.81 sessions per patient on average. Thirty-two patients could not complete the programme. In 76 patients (70%), variceal obliteration was achieved. The ratio of the costs for the session with reloaded ligator versus a session with a new ligator was 1:2.37. Among the patients who completed esophageal varices eradication, cost saving with reloaded ligator was 58%.CONCLUSION: EVL using reloaded multiband ligators for the follow-up sessions on patients undergoing variceal eradication is a cost saving procedure. Reloading the

show abstract

“…An overtube should be introduced and guided into the GI tract either over an endoscope or a bougie. 2 Liberal lubrication of the inner and outer surfaces of the overtube and endoscope is critical prior to insertion, and resistance to passage of the overtube warrants reassessment. Foreign body removal represents one of the most common indications for overtube use.…”

Section: Indications Efficacy and Ease Of Usementioning

confidence: 99%