MARIANNY NAZARETH SULBARAN NAVA

(Fonte: Lattes)
Índice h a partir de 2011
4
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais

Resultados de Busca

Agora exibindo 1 - 4 de 4
  • article 0 Citação(ões) na Scopus
    ENDOSCOPIC GASTRIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION: experimental comparative protocol between standard technique and Hybrid-Knife(r)
    (2016) MENDONÇA, Ernesto Quaresma; ZURETTI, Lucas Snioka; PANZANI, Thiago; SULBARAN, Marianny; SAKAI, Christiano Makoto; SAKAI, Paulo
    ABSTRACT Background Endoscopic treatment of superficial gastrointestinal tumors is routinely performed, however the advantages and shortcomings of submucosal pressure-jet dissection is still debated. Objective - Aiming to compare this technique with conventional submucosal dissection, a study was designed in pigs. Methods - Areas of the antral mucosa of the stomach with a diameter of 2 cm2 (6 per animal) were marked, and resected by means of the hybrid-knife (experimental technique), and Flush-knife or IT-knife (controls). An ERBE ICC 300 electrosurgical unit was adopted. End-points were procedural time, complications, and quality of the resected specimen. Results - A total of 27 interventions were conducted in five animals. Time spent with the two options was quite short, and similar: 9.5±3.1 vs 8.0±3.0 minutes (P=0.21). Complications didn't differ (three per group, not significant), and removed specimen looked adequate in both circumstances. Conclusion - The hybrid-knife technique is an acceptable alternative to submucosal dissection, showing no difference compared to the standard technique taking into consideration the procedure, the presence of complications and the quality of the resected specimen.
  • article
    Overtube-assisted enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy for the diagnosis of small-bowel polyps and tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (2016) SULBARAN, Marianny; MOURA, Eduardo de; BERNARDO, Wanderley; MORAIS, Cintia; OLIVEIRA, Joel; BUSTAMANTE-LOPEZ, Leonardo; SAKAI, Paulo; MOENKEMUELLER, Klaus; SAFATLE-RIBEIRO, Adriana
    Background and study aims: Several studies have evaluated the utility of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and capsule endoscopy (CE) for patients with small-bowel disease showing inconsistent results. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of overtube-assisted enteroscopy (OAE) as well as the diagnostic concordance between OAE and CE for small-bowel polyps and tumors. Patients and methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in which the results of OAE were compared with the results of CE for the evaluation of small-bowel polyps and tumors. When data for surgically resected lesions were available, the histopathological results of OAE and surgical specimens were compared. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for the diagnosis of small-bowel polyps and tumors were analyzed. Secondarily, the rates of diagnostic concordance and discordance between OAE and CE were calculated. Results: There were 15 full-length studies with a total of 821 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were as follows: 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.93), with heterogeneity chi(2)=41.23 (P = 0.0002) and inconsistency (I-2)=66.0 %; 0.97 (95 % CI 0.95-0.98), with heterogeneity chi(2)=45.27 (P=0.07) and inconsistency (I-2)=69.1 %; 16.61 (95 % CI 3.74-73.82), with heterogeneity Cochrane's Q=225.19 (P<0.01) and inconsistency (I-2)=93.8 %; and 0.14 (95 % CI 0.05-0.35), with heterogeneity Cochrane's Q=81.01 (P<.01) and inconsistency (I-2)=82.7 %, respectively. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) curve was constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.97. Conclusion: OAE is an accurate test for the detection of small-bowel polyps and tumors. OAE and CE have a high diagnostic concordance rate for small-bowel polyps and tumors. This study was registered in the PROSPERO international database (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) with the study number CRD42015016000.
  • article 37 Citação(ões) na Scopus
    Prevention of esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (2016) OLIVEIRA, J. F.; MOURA, E. G. H.; BERNARDO, W. M.; IDE, E.; CHENG, S.; SULBARAN, M.; SANTOS, C. M. L.; SAKAI, P.
    Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of extensive superficial cancers of the esophagus may progress with high rates of postoperative stenosis, resulting in significantly decreased quality of life. Several therapies are performed to prevent this, but have not yet been compared in a systematic review. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis were performed using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, LILACS, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. Clinical trials and observational studies were searched from March 2014 to February 2015. Search terms included: endoscopy, ESD, esophageal stenosis, and esophageal stricture. Three retrospective and four prospective (three randomized) cohort studies were selected and involved 249 patients with superficial esophageal neoplasia who underwent ESD, at least two-thirds of the circumference. We grouped trials comparing different techniques to prevent esophagus stenosis post-ESD. We conducted different meta-analyses on randomized clinical trials (RCT), non-RCT, and global analysis. In RCT (three studies, n = 85), the preventive therapy decreased the risk of stenosis (risk difference = -0.36, 95 % CI -0.55 to -0.18, P = 0.0001). Two studies (one randomized and one non-randomized, n = 55) showed that preventative therapy lowered the average number of endoscopy dilatations (mean difference = -8.57, 95 % CI -13.88 to -3.25, P < 0.002). There were no significant differences in the three RCT studies (n = 85) in complication rates between patients with preventative therapy and those without (risk difference = 0.02, 95 % CI -0.09 to 0.14, P = 0.68). The use of preventive therapy after extensive ESD of the esophagus reduces the risk of stenosis and the number of endoscopic dilatations for resolution of stenosis without increasing the number of complications.
  • article 6 Citação(ões) na Scopus
    A novel technique for correction of total rectal prolapse: Endoscopic-assisted percutaneous rectopexy with the aid of the EndoLifter
    (2016) BUSTAMANTE-LOPEZ, L.; SULBARAN, M.; SAKAI, C.; MOURA, E. G. de; BUSTAMANTE-PEREZ, L.; NAHAS, C. S.; NAHAS, S. C.; CECCONELLO, I.; SAKAI, P.
    Introduction and aims: Rectal prolapse is common in the elderly, having an incidence of 1% in patients over 65 years of age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a new endoluminal procedure for attaching the previously mobilized rectum to the anterior abdominal wall using an endoscopic fixation device. Materials and methods: The study is a single-arm phase I experimental trial. Under general anesthesia, total rectal prolapse was surgically reproduced in five pigs. Transanal endoscopic reduction of the rectal prolapse was performed. The best site for transillumination of the abdominal wall, suitable for rectopexy, was identified. The EndoLifter was used to approximate the anterior wall of the proximal rectum to the anterior abdominal wall. Two percutaneous rectopexies were performed by puncture with the Loop Fixture II Gastropexy Kit at the preset site of transillumination. After the percutaneous rectopexies, rectoscopy and exploratory laparotomy were performed. Finally, the animals were euthanized. Results: The mean procedure time was 16 min (11-21) and the mean length of the mobilized specimen was 4.32 cm (range 2.9-5.65cm). A total of 10 fixations were performed with a technical success rate of 100%. There was no evidence of postoperative rectal prolapse in any of the animals. The EndoLifter facilitated the process by allowing the mucosa to be held and manipulated during the repair. Conclusions: Endoscopic-assisted percutaneous rectopexy is a safe and feasible endoluminal procedure for fixation of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall in experimental animals. (C) 2016 Asociacion Mexicana de Gastroenterologia.