Device choice and experience level in endoscopic foreign object retrieval

An in vivo study

D. O. Faigel, B. R. Stotland, M. L. Kochman, T. Hoops, T. Judge, J. Kroser, J. Lewis, W. B. Long, D. C. Metz, Christopher B O'Brien, D. Smith, G. G. Ginsberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Foreign object retrieval is technically demanding. Success may depend upon device choice and the experience level of the endoscopist, although these factors have not been systematically evaluated in an in vivo model. In anesthetized male adult pigs, the ability to retrieve foreign objects (metal tack (12 mm disc, 10 mm spike), button disc battery (12 mm), wooden toothpick (67mm)) placed endoscopically into the stomach was assessed. Five Clinical GI attending physicians, 2 Basic Science Research (BSR) attendings, and 4 fellows-in-training participated. The devices used were the Roth Retrieval Net (US Endoscopy), Rat Tooth forcep (Olympus), Dormia basket (Olympus), Polypectomy Snare (Microvasive) and Radial Jaw forcep (Microvasive). Endoscopy was performed with Olympus Evis GIF-100. The time to retrieve the objects into an esophageal overtube within a 5 minute maximum was measured. Results: Only the Roth Net and Dormia basket were successful in retrieving the button disc battery, although the Roth Net was superior (100% vs 27%, Fisher p<0.025). All devices were equally successful at retrieving the tack (82-100%, p=NS), although the snare was significantly faster than the Roth Net (2 tailed t-test p<0.05) with a trend towards being faster than the Rat Tooth (p<0.07) and Radial Jaw forceps (p<0.09). Additionally, for the tack there were significantly fewer difficulties encountered with the snare (1 LES injury) vs. Roth Net (6: 1 failure to grasp, 1 device failure, 3 dropped object after grasping, 1 inadequated control of sharp leading edge; Fisher p<0.03). The Roth net was incapable of retrieving the toothpick; the other devices were equally successful (91-100%). The Clinical attendings had a significantly higher success rate (95%) than the fellows (82%, Chi Square p<0.05) or combined fellows/BSR attendings (80%, p<0.02). The Clinical attendings were significantly faster (1.18 ± 0.17 min, mean ± SEM) than the fellows (2.39 ± 0.28 min, t-test p<0.0002) or the fellows/BSR attendings (2.25 ± 0.22 min, p<0.0003). Conclusions: 1. The Roth Net is the best device for retrieving smooth objects such as the button disc battery. 2. For sharp objects, such as the tack and toothpick, best results were achieved with the snare, although the forceps were also effective. 3. More experienced endoscopists had higher success rates and faster retrieval times. 4. Both device choice and the experience level of the endoscopist impact on successful foreign object retrieval.

Original languageEnglish
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume43
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 1 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Foreign Bodies
Surgical Instruments
Equipment and Supplies
Jaw
Endoscopy
Tooth
Research
Equipment Failure
Hand Strength
Stomach
Swine
Metals
Physicians
Wounds and Injuries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Faigel, D. O., Stotland, B. R., Kochman, M. L., Hoops, T., Judge, T., Kroser, J., ... Ginsberg, G. G. (1996). Device choice and experience level in endoscopic foreign object retrieval: An in vivo study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 43(4).

Device choice and experience level in endoscopic foreign object retrieval : An in vivo study. / Faigel, D. O.; Stotland, B. R.; Kochman, M. L.; Hoops, T.; Judge, T.; Kroser, J.; Lewis, J.; Long, W. B.; Metz, D. C.; O'Brien, Christopher B; Smith, D.; Ginsberg, G. G.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 43, No. 4, 01.12.1996.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Faigel, DO, Stotland, BR, Kochman, ML, Hoops, T, Judge, T, Kroser, J, Lewis, J, Long, WB, Metz, DC, O'Brien, CB, Smith, D & Ginsberg, GG 1996, 'Device choice and experience level in endoscopic foreign object retrieval: An in vivo study', Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 43, no. 4.
Faigel DO, Stotland BR, Kochman ML, Hoops T, Judge T, Kroser J et al. Device choice and experience level in endoscopic foreign object retrieval: An in vivo study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1996 Dec 1;43(4).
Faigel, D. O. ; Stotland, B. R. ; Kochman, M. L. ; Hoops, T. ; Judge, T. ; Kroser, J. ; Lewis, J. ; Long, W. B. ; Metz, D. C. ; O'Brien, Christopher B ; Smith, D. ; Ginsberg, G. G. / Device choice and experience level in endoscopic foreign object retrieval : An in vivo study. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1996 ; Vol. 43, No. 4.
@article{d4fbdcef4f7d4f67918a695914db8692,
title = "Device choice and experience level in endoscopic foreign object retrieval: An in vivo study",
abstract = "Foreign object retrieval is technically demanding. Success may depend upon device choice and the experience level of the endoscopist, although these factors have not been systematically evaluated in an in vivo model. In anesthetized male adult pigs, the ability to retrieve foreign objects (metal tack (12 mm disc, 10 mm spike), button disc battery (12 mm), wooden toothpick (67mm)) placed endoscopically into the stomach was assessed. Five Clinical GI attending physicians, 2 Basic Science Research (BSR) attendings, and 4 fellows-in-training participated. The devices used were the Roth Retrieval Net (US Endoscopy), Rat Tooth forcep (Olympus), Dormia basket (Olympus), Polypectomy Snare (Microvasive) and Radial Jaw forcep (Microvasive). Endoscopy was performed with Olympus Evis GIF-100. The time to retrieve the objects into an esophageal overtube within a 5 minute maximum was measured. Results: Only the Roth Net and Dormia basket were successful in retrieving the button disc battery, although the Roth Net was superior (100{\%} vs 27{\%}, Fisher p<0.025). All devices were equally successful at retrieving the tack (82-100{\%}, p=NS), although the snare was significantly faster than the Roth Net (2 tailed t-test p<0.05) with a trend towards being faster than the Rat Tooth (p<0.07) and Radial Jaw forceps (p<0.09). Additionally, for the tack there were significantly fewer difficulties encountered with the snare (1 LES injury) vs. Roth Net (6: 1 failure to grasp, 1 device failure, 3 dropped object after grasping, 1 inadequated control of sharp leading edge; Fisher p<0.03). The Roth net was incapable of retrieving the toothpick; the other devices were equally successful (91-100{\%}). The Clinical attendings had a significantly higher success rate (95{\%}) than the fellows (82{\%}, Chi Square p<0.05) or combined fellows/BSR attendings (80{\%}, p<0.02). The Clinical attendings were significantly faster (1.18 ± 0.17 min, mean ± SEM) than the fellows (2.39 ± 0.28 min, t-test p<0.0002) or the fellows/BSR attendings (2.25 ± 0.22 min, p<0.0003). Conclusions: 1. The Roth Net is the best device for retrieving smooth objects such as the button disc battery. 2. For sharp objects, such as the tack and toothpick, best results were achieved with the snare, although the forceps were also effective. 3. More experienced endoscopists had higher success rates and faster retrieval times. 4. Both device choice and the experience level of the endoscopist impact on successful foreign object retrieval.",
author = "Faigel, {D. O.} and Stotland, {B. R.} and Kochman, {M. L.} and T. Hoops and T. Judge and J. Kroser and J. Lewis and Long, {W. B.} and Metz, {D. C.} and O'Brien, {Christopher B} and D. Smith and Ginsberg, {G. G.}",
year = "1996",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Device choice and experience level in endoscopic foreign object retrieval

T2 - An in vivo study

AU - Faigel, D. O.

AU - Stotland, B. R.

AU - Kochman, M. L.

AU - Hoops, T.

AU - Judge, T.

AU - Kroser, J.

AU - Lewis, J.

AU - Long, W. B.

AU - Metz, D. C.

AU - O'Brien, Christopher B

AU - Smith, D.

AU - Ginsberg, G. G.

PY - 1996/12/1

Y1 - 1996/12/1

N2 - Foreign object retrieval is technically demanding. Success may depend upon device choice and the experience level of the endoscopist, although these factors have not been systematically evaluated in an in vivo model. In anesthetized male adult pigs, the ability to retrieve foreign objects (metal tack (12 mm disc, 10 mm spike), button disc battery (12 mm), wooden toothpick (67mm)) placed endoscopically into the stomach was assessed. Five Clinical GI attending physicians, 2 Basic Science Research (BSR) attendings, and 4 fellows-in-training participated. The devices used were the Roth Retrieval Net (US Endoscopy), Rat Tooth forcep (Olympus), Dormia basket (Olympus), Polypectomy Snare (Microvasive) and Radial Jaw forcep (Microvasive). Endoscopy was performed with Olympus Evis GIF-100. The time to retrieve the objects into an esophageal overtube within a 5 minute maximum was measured. Results: Only the Roth Net and Dormia basket were successful in retrieving the button disc battery, although the Roth Net was superior (100% vs 27%, Fisher p<0.025). All devices were equally successful at retrieving the tack (82-100%, p=NS), although the snare was significantly faster than the Roth Net (2 tailed t-test p<0.05) with a trend towards being faster than the Rat Tooth (p<0.07) and Radial Jaw forceps (p<0.09). Additionally, for the tack there were significantly fewer difficulties encountered with the snare (1 LES injury) vs. Roth Net (6: 1 failure to grasp, 1 device failure, 3 dropped object after grasping, 1 inadequated control of sharp leading edge; Fisher p<0.03). The Roth net was incapable of retrieving the toothpick; the other devices were equally successful (91-100%). The Clinical attendings had a significantly higher success rate (95%) than the fellows (82%, Chi Square p<0.05) or combined fellows/BSR attendings (80%, p<0.02). The Clinical attendings were significantly faster (1.18 ± 0.17 min, mean ± SEM) than the fellows (2.39 ± 0.28 min, t-test p<0.0002) or the fellows/BSR attendings (2.25 ± 0.22 min, p<0.0003). Conclusions: 1. The Roth Net is the best device for retrieving smooth objects such as the button disc battery. 2. For sharp objects, such as the tack and toothpick, best results were achieved with the snare, although the forceps were also effective. 3. More experienced endoscopists had higher success rates and faster retrieval times. 4. Both device choice and the experience level of the endoscopist impact on successful foreign object retrieval.

AB - Foreign object retrieval is technically demanding. Success may depend upon device choice and the experience level of the endoscopist, although these factors have not been systematically evaluated in an in vivo model. In anesthetized male adult pigs, the ability to retrieve foreign objects (metal tack (12 mm disc, 10 mm spike), button disc battery (12 mm), wooden toothpick (67mm)) placed endoscopically into the stomach was assessed. Five Clinical GI attending physicians, 2 Basic Science Research (BSR) attendings, and 4 fellows-in-training participated. The devices used were the Roth Retrieval Net (US Endoscopy), Rat Tooth forcep (Olympus), Dormia basket (Olympus), Polypectomy Snare (Microvasive) and Radial Jaw forcep (Microvasive). Endoscopy was performed with Olympus Evis GIF-100. The time to retrieve the objects into an esophageal overtube within a 5 minute maximum was measured. Results: Only the Roth Net and Dormia basket were successful in retrieving the button disc battery, although the Roth Net was superior (100% vs 27%, Fisher p<0.025). All devices were equally successful at retrieving the tack (82-100%, p=NS), although the snare was significantly faster than the Roth Net (2 tailed t-test p<0.05) with a trend towards being faster than the Rat Tooth (p<0.07) and Radial Jaw forceps (p<0.09). Additionally, for the tack there were significantly fewer difficulties encountered with the snare (1 LES injury) vs. Roth Net (6: 1 failure to grasp, 1 device failure, 3 dropped object after grasping, 1 inadequated control of sharp leading edge; Fisher p<0.03). The Roth net was incapable of retrieving the toothpick; the other devices were equally successful (91-100%). The Clinical attendings had a significantly higher success rate (95%) than the fellows (82%, Chi Square p<0.05) or combined fellows/BSR attendings (80%, p<0.02). The Clinical attendings were significantly faster (1.18 ± 0.17 min, mean ± SEM) than the fellows (2.39 ± 0.28 min, t-test p<0.0002) or the fellows/BSR attendings (2.25 ± 0.22 min, p<0.0003). Conclusions: 1. The Roth Net is the best device for retrieving smooth objects such as the button disc battery. 2. For sharp objects, such as the tack and toothpick, best results were achieved with the snare, although the forceps were also effective. 3. More experienced endoscopists had higher success rates and faster retrieval times. 4. Both device choice and the experience level of the endoscopist impact on successful foreign object retrieval.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=10544221006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=10544221006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 43

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 4

ER -