The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

71 protocols using gif q260

1

Histopathologic Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed using a GIF-Q260 or GIF-XP260 scope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), while colonoscopy was performed using a PCF-Q260AL, GIF-Q260, or GIF-XP260 scope (Olympus).
Endoscopic mucosal biopsies were obtained from the esophagus, gastric antrum and body, duodenum, terminal ileum, cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon, and rectum, respectively. Biopsy tissues were immediately fixed in formalin and processed in paraffin wax. Sections were cut at 3 μm and stained with hematoxylin and eosin for histopathologic examination.
Eosinophils were counted in five randomly selected high power fields (HPF). Quantification of eosinophils was performed using an Axioskop40 microscope (Mirax-Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) at 400× magnification. Cell counting was performed by two pathologists who were blinded to the patients' statuses, and the average value over the five HPFs was calculated for each subject.
The histopathologic diagnosis of EoGID was made when the total number of infiltrating eosinophils per HPF exceeded 15 in the esophagus, 20 in the stomach and duodenum, and 25 in the colon and rectum. Terminal ileum and cecum were excluded, considering that tissue eosinophils may be present in normal children.20 (link)21 (link)22 (link)23 (link)
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Comprehensive GI Tract Evaluation

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All children underwent both esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy with biopsies following presentation with chronic or recurrent GI symptoms. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed using a GIF-Q260 or GIF-XP260 (Olympus), and colonoscopy was performed using a PCF-Q260AL, GIF-Q260, or GIF-XP260 scope (Olympus).
Tissue samples were collected by endoscopic biopsy from each segment of the GI tract, including the esophagus, gastric antrum, gastric body, duodenum, terminal ileum, cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum. These biopsy specimens were immediately formalin fixed and processed by embedding in paraffin wax. Thin cross sections measuring 3 µm in thickness were cut from the paraffin block and stained with hematoxylin-eosin. The eosinophil count was determined by examining five randomly selected high-power fields, with quantification of eosinophils performed at ×400 magnification using an Axioskope40 microscope (Mirax-Carl Zeiss) [14 (link)].
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

H. pylori Detection and Colonoscopic Findings

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
H. pylori infection was detected using the biopsy urease test (CLO test, Pronto Dry, Gastrex, Poland) using standard EGD with gastrofibroscopes (GIFQ260, Olympus Optical, Tokyo Japan). A specimen for biopsy urease testing of each subject was taken from the gastric antrum using biopsy forceps and assessed within 60 min. The agar color of the biopsy urease testing turned from yellow to red when the biopsy specimen was infected with H. pylori, which contained intra-cytoplasmic urease. The colonoscope (CF Q260AL; Olympus Optical, Tokyo Japan), operated by experienced gastroenterologists, was inserted from the anus up to the ileocecal area. Larger (> 0.5 cm) polyps were removed with standard polypectomy snares whereas smaller (< 0.5 cm) polyps were removed with a biopsy forceps. We classified colonoscopic findings into three subgroups: (a) polyp-free, (b) hyperplastic polyps, and (c) adenomatous polyps (tubular adenoma or tubularvillous adenoma) [45 (link)]. Analytical findings, such as juvenile or inflammatory polyps, lipomas, lymphoid aggregates, and chronic nonspecific inflammation, were regarded as normal mucosa.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Technique

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The PEG procedure was performed either in the endoscopy room or in the operating room, under the guidance of endoscopes with external diameters of 9.2 mm (GIF-Q260; Olympus Optical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) or 6.5 mm (GIF-XP260; Olympus Optical Co., Ltd.). We used the Cook PEG Kit (Wilson-Cook Medical Inc., Winston-Salem, NC, USA) for the pull technique, and either the Cliny PEG Kit (Create Medic, Yokohama, Japan) or the Kimberly-Clark MIC G Introducer Kit (Vygon Ltd., Cirencester, UK) for the introducer techniques (Table 1).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Lesions

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All procedures were performed by four endoscopic specialists with experience in performing more than 100 cases of ESD, using a gastroscope (GIF-Q240 or GIF-Q260; Olympus Optical, Tokyo, Japan). The characteristics of all lesions, such as the site of occurrence, gross findings, presence of ulcers, and erosions, were inspected, and the gross findings were categorized as I, IIa, IIb, IIc, and III according to the Paris endoscopic classification of early gastric cancer.
A 5-mm margin was marked outside the lesion using a snare tip; normal saline was injected into the submucosa surrounding the lesion. An incision was made circumferentially around the lesion using a needle knife (KD-1L-1; Olympus Optical). Submucosal dissection was performed using an IT knife (insulated-tip diathermic knife; KD-610L; Olympus Optical) and an IT knife-2 (KD-611L; Olympus Optical).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Gastric Biopsy Urease Test for H. pylori

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
H pylori infection was detected with a biopsy urease test (CLO test, Pronto Dry, Gastrex, Poland) using standard EGD with gastrofiberscopes (GIFQ260, Olympus Optical, Tokyo Japan). A specimen for biopsy urease testing of each subject was taken from the gastric antrum using biopsy forceps and assessed within 60 minutes. The agar color turned from yellow to red when the biopsy specimen was infected by H pylori, which expresses an intracytoplasmic urease.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Endoscopic Grading of Gastroesophageal Reflux

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All EGDs were performed at the Health Evaluation Center. Some people had gastrointestinal discomfort, but most of the others did not show any discomfort clinically. The definition of having GERD was determined by EGDs findings, rather than being defined by the symptoms of clinically presenting GERD. Four experienced gastroenterologists blinded to the study aimed to perform the EGD using gastrofiberscopes (GIFQ260, Olympus Optical, Tokyo, Japan). The severity of GERD was graded from A to D according to the Los Angeles Classification.
Grade A: One (or more) mucosal break, no longer than 5 mm that does not extend between the tops of two mucosal folds.
Grade B: One (or more) mucosal break, more than 5 mm long that does not extend between the tops of two mucosal folds.
Grade C: One (or more) mucosal break that is continuous between the tops of two or more mucosal folds but involves less than 75% of the circumference.
Grade D: One (or more) mucosal break involving at least 75% of the esophageal circumference.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Endoscopic Removal of Foreign Bodies

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
After fasting for 4 to 6 h, each patient underwent an upper endoscopy under local pharyngeal anesthesia with Lidocaine mucilage. Flexible endoscopes (GIF-Q240, GIF-Q260, GIF-H260, GIF-H290; Olympus Optical Co, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) were used for the procedure. A variety of accessory devices were used to remove the FBs, which included foreign-body retrieval forceps, retrieval baskets and snares. A latex protector hood was used to protect the digestive tract while removing FBs.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Endoscopic Removal of Ingested Foreign Bodies

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All patients suspected of having ingested foreign bodies underwent routine radiologic and laryngologic examination to exclude oropharyngeal foreign bodies. Patients also underwent computed tomography scan of the chest, depending on the clinical setting and at the discretion of the attending physician, before or after the endoscopic procedure. Endoscopic foreign body removal was initially attempted using a flexible endoscope (GIF-H260 or GIF-Q260; Olympus Optical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). All patients were examined by board-certified endoscopists under local pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine. Because of the risk of aspiration, patients were not placed under conscious sedation. Vital signs, including blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation, were monitored continually throughout the procedure. Accessory devices used to remove foreign bodies included standard biopsy forceps, rat-tooth forceps, alligator forceps (FG-47 L-1; Olympus), a retrieval basket (MTW Endoskopie, Wesel, Germany), or a snare (MTW Endoskopie). Additional protective measures, such as a latex protector hood (DIAGMED, Thirsk, England), an overtube (TS-12,140 or TS-13,140; Fujinon, Saitama, Japan), or a transparent cap (Olympus), were occasionally used to prevent damage to the gastrointestinal tract during the removal of sharp or pointed foreign bodies.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Standard Single-Channel Endoscopy Protocol

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All EGDs were performed with a standard single-channel endoscope (GIF-Q260 or GIF-H260; Olympus Optical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). All six endoscopists were trained at single tertiary medical center before working at our institute and all of them were board-certified.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!