Stray energy transfer during endoscopy
- 220 Downloads
Endoscopy is the standard tool for the evaluation and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders. While the risk of complication is low, the use of energy devices can increase complications by 100-fold. The mechanism of increased injury and presence of stray energy is unknown. The purpose of the study was to determine if stray energy transfer occurs during endoscopy and if so, to define strategies to minimize the risk of energy complications.
Methods and Procedures
A gastroscope was introduced into the stomach of an anesthetized pig. A monopolar generator delivered energy for 5 s to a snare without contacting tissue or the endoscope itself. The endoscope tip orientation, energy device type, power level, energy mode, and generator type were varied to mimic in vivo use. The primary outcome (stray current) was quantified as the change in tissue temperature (°C) from baseline at the tissue closest to the tip of the endoscope. Data were reported as mean ± standard deviation.
Using the 60 W coag mode while changing the orientation of the endoscope tip, tissue temperature increased by 12.1 ± 3.5 °C nearest the camera lens (p < 0.001 vs. all others), 2.1 ± 0.8 °C nearest the light lens, and 1.7 ± 0.4 °C nearest the working channel. Measuring temperature at the camera lens, reducing power to 30 W (9.5 ± 0.8 °C) and 15 W (8.0 ± 0.8 °C) decreased stray energy transfer (p = 0.04 and p = 0.002, respectively) as did utilizing the low-voltage cut mode (6.6 ± 0.5 °C, p < 0.001). An impedance-monitoring generator significantly decreased the energy transfer compared to a standard generator (1.5 ± 3.5 °C vs. 9.5 ± 0.8 °C, p < 0.001).
Stray energy is transferred within the endoscope during the activation of common energy devices. This could result in post-polypectomy syndrome, bleeding, or perforation outside of the endoscopist’s view. Decreasing the power, utilizing low-voltage modes and/or an impedance-monitoring generator can decrease the risk of complication.
KeywordsEndoscopy Stray energy Complication Coupling Polypectomy Impedance
This research was supported by a grant from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (2016).
Compliance with ethical standards
Edward L. Jones MD, Amin Madani MD PhD, Douglas M. Overbey MD, Asimina Kiourti PhD, Satheesh Bojja-Venkatakrishnan MS, Dean J. Mikami MD, Jeffrey W. Hazey MD, and Thomas N Robinson MD have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 1.Wong KSL, Topazian M (2012) Chapter 291. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. In: Longo DL, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, Hauser SL, Jameson J, Loscalzo J (eds) Harrison’s principles of internal medicine, 18e. McGraw-Hill, New York. http://accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=331&Sectionid=40727083. Accessed October 22, 2014.
- 3.Lohsiriwat V. Colonoscopic perforation: incidence, risk factors, management and outcome. World J Gastroenterol. 16(4):425–430.Google Scholar
- 4.Toyonaga T, Man-i M, East JE, Nishino E, Ono W, Hirooka T, Ueda C, Iwata Y, Sugiyama T, Dozaiku T, Hirooka T, Fujita T, Inokuchi H, Azuma T (2013) 1,635 endoscopic submucosal dissection cases in the esophagus, stomach, and colorectum: complication rates and long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 27(3):1000–1008Google Scholar
- 9.Brunt LM (2012) Chapter 3. Fundamentals of electrosurgery part II: thermal injury mechanisms and prevention. In: Feldman LS, Fuchshuber PR, Jones DB (eds) The SAGES manual on the fundamental use of surgical energy (FUSE), 1e. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 13.Overbey DM, Jones EL, Townsend NT, Chapman BC, Bennett DT, Foley LS, Rau AS, Yi JA, Stiegmann GV, Robinson TN. Complications after endoscopy: electrosurgical device injury or death as reported to the FDA. SAGES 2016 Poster Presentation.Google Scholar