摘要：Abstract In Japan, two 0.4% sodium hyaluronate (HA)-based submucosal injection materials (SIMs) are currently used in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD): MucoUp (HA-Mc) and Ksmart (HA-Ks). HA-Mc and HA-Ks have the same concentration and are, thus, construed by most endoscopists to have no difference. Nevertheless, visual observation conveys the impression that HA-Ks have a higher viscosity than HA-Mc, suggesting that HA-Ks performs better than HA-Mc. This study aimed to examine the differences between HA-Mc and HA-Ks. HA-Ks exhibited higher viscosity due to greater weight-average molecular weight compared with HA-Mc. HA-Ks had significantly greater submucosal elevation height (SEH) than HA-Mc; the SEH of HA-Ks-80% (80% dilution of HA-Ks) was the same as that of HA-Mc. The ESD procedure time was significantly shorter with HA-Ks than with HA-Mc (15.2 ± 4.1 vs. 19.5 ± 5.9; P = 0.049). The total injection volume for HA-Ks was significantly lower than that for HA-Mc (10.8 ± 3.6 vs. 14.4 ± 4.6; P = 0.045). However, no significant difference in these items was observed between HA-Mc and HA-Ks-80%. HA-Mc and HA-Ks were considered to be almost the same. Nonetheless, HA-Ks exhibited higher viscosity and SIM performance than HA-Mc. HA-Ks-80% had almost the same performance as HA-Mc. Thus, understanding SIM performance and characteristics requires a focus on the viscosity of SIMs.
其他摘要：Abstract In Japan, two 0.4% sodium hyaluronate (HA)-based submucosal injection materials (SIMs) are currently used in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD): MucoUp (HA-Mc) and Ksmart (HA-Ks). HA-Mc and HA-Ks have the same concentration and are, thus, construed by most endoscopists to have no difference. Nevertheless, visual observation conveys the impression that HA-Ks have a higher viscosity than HA-Mc, suggesting that HA-Ks performs better than HA-Mc. This study aimed to examine the differences between HA-Mc and HA-Ks. HA-Ks exhibited higher viscosity due to greater weight-average molecular weight compared with HA-Mc. HA-Ks had significantly greater submucosal elevation height (SEH) than HA-Mc; the SEH of HA-Ks-80% (80% dilution of HA-Ks) was the same as that of HA-Mc. The ESD procedure time was significantly shorter with HA-Ks than with HA-Mc (15.2 ± 4.1 vs. 19.5 ± 5.9; P = 0.049). The total injection volume for HA-Ks was significantly lower than that for HA-Mc (10.8 ± 3.6 vs. 14.4 ± 4.6; P = 0.045). However, no significant difference in these items was observed between HA-Mc and HA-Ks-80%. HA-Mc and HA-Ks were considered to be almost the same. Nonetheless, HA-Ks exhibited higher viscosity and SIM performance than HA-Mc. HA-Ks-80% had almost the same performance as HA-Mc. Thus, understanding SIM performance and characteristics requires a focus on the viscosity of SIMs.
