Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 59(4); 2026 > Article
Original Article Feasibility of Zeosuture M for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection defect closure during anticoagulation: a preclinical porcine study from Japan
Yohei Minato1,2orcid, Tadateru Maehata1orcid, Yoshinori Sato1orcid, Fumio Itoh1orcid, Ken Ohata2orcid, Keisuke Tateishi1orcid
Clinical Endoscopy 2026;59(4):593-600.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2025.329
Published online: February 24, 2026

1Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan

2Department of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, NTT Medical Center Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Correspondence: Yohei Minato Department of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, NTT Medical Center Tokyo, 5-9-22 Higashigotanda-A414, Shinagawa City, Tokyo, Japan E-mail: yoheiminato55925@gmail.com
• Received: September 3, 2025   • Revised: October 15, 2025   • Accepted: October 23, 2025

© 2026 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 1,606 Views
  • 189 Download
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Background/Aims
    Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients undergoing anticoagulant therapy carries a risk of delayed bleeding. Zeosuture M is a novel endoscopic suturing system designed for secure mucosal closure. This study evaluated the feasibility of Zeosuture M and the short-term clinical course after mucosal closure in a warfarinized porcine ESD model.
  • Methods
    Gastric ESD was performed in four pigs under warfarin anticoagulation (three defects per animal; 12 sites). Warfarin administration began 15 days before ESD. All defects were closed using Zeosuture M. Follow-up endoscopy was performed on postoperative days (POD) 1, 2, 4, and 8. Necropsy was conducted on POD 8.
  • Results
    Technical success was 100% (12/12). The mean specimen size was 27.5±3.4 mm, mean number of stitches 3.6±0.7, closure time 28.1±8.0 minutes, and time per stitch 8.0 minutes. No uncontrolled intraprocedural bleeding, delayed hemorrhage, perforation, or peritonitis occurred. Partial loss of apposition was observed on POD 4, and all sites reopened by POD 8 without adverse clinical events.
  • Conclusions
    Zeosuture M provided early stabilization of ESD ulcers during continuous anticoagulation, enabling safe traversal of the high-risk period for delayed bleeding. This represents one of the first preclinical warfarinized porcine evaluations and suggests potential applicability in high-risk patients.
  • Keywords: Anticoagulants; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Suture techniques
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), which enables en bloc resection of large lesions, has revolutionized the management of early gastric neoplasia.1,2 However, this technique carries procedural risks including perforation and delayed bleeding, which are particularly problematic in patients undergoing anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.3-5 With the increasing prevalence of anticoagulant use in the aging population and increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, strategies to mitigate post-ESD complications in this high-risk group are urgently needed.6
Several endoscopic closure techniques have been developed including clip closure and over-the-scope clips (OTSCs).7 While effective for small lesions, these methods may not always provide durable or stable closure of larger defects or defects in patients receiving anticoagulant therapy.8,9 Endoscopic suturing systems have emerged as promising alternatives that can potentially offer stronger and more reliable defect closure.10-12
Zeosuture M (Zeon Medical) is a double arm-bar automated suturing system designed for use during flexible fiberoptic endoscopy that permits mucosal plication and, depending on the technique used, even full-thickness closure.13-15 However, the outcomes of using this device in patients receiving systemic anticoagulants remain insufficiently characterized. We evaluated the feasibility and short-term safety of defect closure using Zeosuture M in warfarinized pigs, focusing on the early post-ESD period when the risk of bleeding is at its peak.
Animal preparation
Four domestic pigs (35–40 kg; IDs Z01–Z04) were administered warfarin orally beginning 15 days prior to the scheduled ESD, at the initial dose of 0.07 mg/kg on day −15, followed by maintenance dosing at 0.04 mg/kg once daily thereafter. Anticoagulation was maintained through postoperative day (POD) 8, and serial international normalized ratio measurements were performed to confirm anticoagulant effects (Table 1). The procedures were performed under general anesthesia.
ESD procedure
Standard gastric ESD was performed to create 20 to 30 mm mucosal defects (three per animal; total of 12). The locations were prespecified across the body and antrum to sample differing wall thicknesses (Z01: body posterior 1, antrum anterior 2; Z02: body anterior 1, antrum posterior 2; Z03: body anterior 2, antrum posterior 1; Z04: body anterior 2, antrum posterior 1).
Endoscope and accessories
We performed closure using a standard single-channel gastroscope equipped with a 3.2-mm working channel (GIF-Q260J; Olympus). An overtube (inner diameter, 20 mm; effective length, 205 mm; TOP Co.) was used during oropharyngeal intubation to facilitate smooth passage and minimize the risk of oropharyngeal injury. Each procedure was conducted by two personnel: one endoscopist and one assistant operating the device.
Device description and closure technique
Zeosuture M is a single-use automated suturing system designed for use with flexible endoscopy that deploys sterile sutures for mucosal plication and is capable of full-thickness closure. In the present study, the target defects were post-ESD ulcer bases; therefore, closure was performed at the mucosal–submucosal level rather than at the full thickness.
1) Closure steps
The two front arms were positioned on both sides of the defect, the rear arm advanced the puncture needle to penetrate the gastric mucosa, and the defect edges were approximated and tensioned with Zeotieupper S (Zeon Medical). After cinching the suture loop in place, the thread was cut between the cinch and the needle using a Hookcutter MI (Zeon Medical). Sequential stitches were placed until an apparent endoscopic closure was achieved (Figs. 1, 2, Supplementary Video 1).
Post-procedural assessment
The animals were monitored for 7 days (vital signs, intake, and activity). Endoscopic examinations were performed on POD 1, 2, 4, and 8 to assess suture integrity, mucosal apposition, and the presence of bleeding or perforation. On POD 8, the animals were humanely euthanized and gross inspection of the peritoneal cavity and stomach was performed at necropsy to evaluate the presence of perforation, peritonitis, and/or bleeding.
Statistics
Descriptive site-based analyses (n=12) were conducted using EZR ver. 1.61 (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University), a graphical user interface for R. Continuous variables are summarized as means±standard deviation with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (t distribution) and proportions with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CIs. “Time per stitch” was defined as the closure time (minutes) divided by the number of stitches per site.16
Ethics approval and animal welfare
All animal procedures were performed in compliance with the Japanese law and institutional animal welfare guidelines, with the approval of the Aibitec Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (approval number: IVT21-171).
Technical performance
The technical success rate for mucosal closure was 100% (12/12; 95% CI, 73.5%–100%). The mean specimen size was 27.5±3.4 (95% CI, 25.36–29.64) mm; the mean number of stitches was 3.6±0.7 (95% CI, 3.16–4.01); the mean closure time was 28.1±8.0 (95% CI, 22.99–33.18) minutes. The mean time taken per stitch was 8.0±2.4 (95% CI, 6.44–9.51) min/stitch. No cases of intraprocedural perforation or uncontrolled bleeding were observed (Tables 2, 3).
Endoscopic durability
Endoscopy performed on POD 1 and 2 confirmed visible sutures at the closure lines with no active bleeding or perforation. On POD 4, partial loss of mucosal apposition was observed at several sites. On POD 8, all closed defects were reopened. Despite the late loosening of the closure, no cases of delayed hemorrhage or perforation occurred during the observation period (Fig. 3).
Clinical course
All animals survived until POD 8 without melena, hematemesis, abdominal distension, or signs of peritonitis. A gross necropsy revealed no peritoneal contamination or active bleeding (Fig. 4).
In the warfarinized pigs, use of Zeosuture M enabled immediate technical defect closure and an uneventful early post-procedural course from POD 1 through 8, the period during which the risk of post-ESD bleeding is at its peak.3,5,6,8 The POD-4 partial loosening and POD-8 complete loosening of the sutures align with prior observations in porcine models that purely mucosal stitches may not persist beyond a week in the stomach, where submucosal remodeling and wall thickness predispose to late relaxation; thus, the clinical goal of mucosal closure lies in bridging the early high-risk window rather than ensuring long-term apposition.12 Our data support this interpretation; securing early mucosal approximation resulted in a zero incidence of bleeding/peritonitis and a stable clinical course in warfarinized porcine models.
Implications in anticoagulated patients
Patients receiving anticoagulation therapy constitute a cohort at a substantially elevated risk of delayed bleeding after gastric ESD, with warfarin carrying the highest weight in the BEST-J risk model.17 Moreover, clinically relevant bleeding under continued low-dose warfarin therapy was observed on POD 2–4,18 highlighting the first postoperative week as a vulnerable window. Within this context, our warfarinized porcine model showed that immediate mucosal approximation with Zeosuture M was technically successful and the clinical course remained uneventful through POD 1–8, despite later loosening of mucosal stitches. These findings support a bridging rationale, whereby secure early closure may stabilize the ulcer base and mitigate bleeding risk during the high-risk period in anticoagulated settings. We acknowledge that human outcome data are limited and controlled clinical studies are needed to confirm whether early endoscopic closure reduces delayed bleeding in anticoagulated patients.
Positioning among the available closure options
Clip-based methods and the use of OTSCs can reduce the risk of selected defects; however, their usefulness may be limited by the defect size or unfavorable tension vectors, particularly in the stomach.7,9 Accumulating clinical data support robust apposition achieved with endoscopic hand suturing after ESD, including in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy10,11; non-suturing mechanical approaches such as the reopenable-clip over-the-line method, endoscopic ligation with O-ring closure, and endoloop-and-clip closure are feasible for larger defects and high-risk settings.19-21 These trends are consistent with contemporary complication reviews and technology updates that summarize the indications and device performances across platforms.22-24 Zeosuture M represents an operator-controlled suturing option; although the device offers the capability for full-thickness closure, our protocol intentionally targeted mucosal/submucosal approximation in ESD ulcers.13-15
Strengths and limitations

1) Strengths

A high-risk setting was modeled with the use of systemically warfarinized pigs; a standardized Zeosuture M technique was applied to 12 gastric ESD defects (body/antrum). Protocolized endoscopy on POD 1/2/4/8 with a predefined grading of closure (intact/partial/complete) characterized the time course under continuous anticoagulant therapy, and POD-8 necropsy confirmed the absence of peritoneal contamination or bleeding.

2) Limitations

Operator experience and learning curve: The operators had experienced only a few pilot cases before this porcine experiment; therefore, a formal learning curve could not be determined. Nevertheless, complete defect closure was technically feasible from the outset, and after a few practical cases, the procedure could be performed reproducibly.

(1) Study design

This was a small, single-arm preclinical study without a comparator, the follow-up duration was short (until POD 8), and we did not use histopathological or long-term healing endpoints. The analyses were site based, with multiple sites assessed per animal. Therefore, controlled comparative studies are required to assess the safety, efficacy, durability, and cost.
Conclusion
Zeosuture M enabled reliable early stabilization of gastric ESD defects in porcine models receiving continuous warfarin administration. Although mucosal apposition was loosened by POD 8, the absence of any events of delayed hemorrhage or peritoneal complications supports the device’s role in bridging the early high-risk period in anticoagulated patients and warrants further clinical evaluation in randomized controlled studies.

Supplementary Video 1.

Defect closure using the Zeosuture M.
Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/ce.2025.329.
Fig. 1.
Endoscopic suturing devices. (A) Zeosuture M (Zeon Medical). (B) Zeosuture M Mounted on the Distal Tip of the Gastroscope. (C) Zeotieupper S (Zeon Medical). (D) Hookcutter MI (Zeon Medical.).
ce-2025-329f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Stepwise mucosal closure using Zeosuture M (Zeon Medical). (A) Post-endoscopic submucosal dissection mucosal defect (ulcer base). (B) The endoscope, equipped with the Zeosuture M at the distal tip, is reinserted; (C) the front arm is positioned at one edge of the defect; (D) the front arm of the opposite side is placed, and the rear arm is used to advance the puncture needle to penetrate the gastric mucosa, passing a suture; (E) the suture traverses both sides of the defect; (F) the suture is tensioned and cinched using the Zeotieupper S through the working channel; (G) after being secured with the suture retainer, the thread is cut with the Hookcutter MI (Zeon Medical); (H) additional stitches are placed in the same manner; (I) complete mucosal closure obtained after three stitches.
ce-2025-329f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Follow-up endoscopy after Zeosuture M (Zeon Medical) closure in the porcine models receiving continuous warfarin administration. Z03 antrum anterior: On postoperative day (POD) 4, the closure line remained intact with maintained mucosal apposition and no active bleeding. On POD 8, the defect reopened (complete dehiscence). Z04 body anterior: On POD 4, partial loss of apposition (partial dehiscence) was observed along the closure line, and complete dehiscence was evident on POD 8. No perforations or active hemorrhages were observed in any of the animals.
ce-2025-329f3.jpg
Fig. 4.
Postoperative day (POD) 8: gross and endoluminal findings. (A) External (serosal) view of the peritoneal cavity showing no turbid ascites, fibrin, or purulent exudate; the serosal surfaces are glistening. (B) External (serosal) view of the stomach around the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) sites showing intact serosa without perforation, hematoma, adhesions, or intraperitoneal hemorrhage. (C) Endoluminal view of the post-ESD ulcer base showing mucosal reopening without active bleeding or visible transmural defect, consistent with the absence of peritonitis on POD 8.
ce-2025-329f4.jpg
ce-2025-329f5.jpg
Table 1.
Baseline and perioperative values of PT-INR in the animals
Pig ID INR baseline INR at ESD INR POD 8 Survival to POD 8
Z01 0.99 3.10 2.53 Yes
Z02 0.95 2.91 1.93 Yes
Z03 0.98 3.06 1.91 Yes
Z04 0.95 2.75 2.00 Yes

INR, international normalized ratio; PT-INR, prothrombin time INR; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; POD, postoperative day; Z01, body posterior 1, antrum anterior 2; Z02, body anterior 1, antrum posterior 2; Z03, body anterior 2, antrum posterior 1; Z04, body anterior 2, antrum posterior 1.

Table 2.
Procedural and endoscopic outcomes (n=12 sites)
Site ID Location Specimen size (mm) Stitches (n) Closure time (min) Time taken/stitch (min) POD 1/2 POD 4 POD 8 Adverse event
Z01-A-AW Antrum, anterior 25 4 42 10.5 Maintained closure Partial dehisce Complete dehiscence None
Z01-A-PW Antrum, posterior 30 3 23 7.7 Maintained closure Maintained closure Complete dehiscence None
Z01-B-PW Body, posterior 30 3 26 8.7 Maintained closure Complete dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
Z02-A-PW Antrum, posterior 30 4 30 7.5 Maintained closure Complete dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
Z02-A-AW Antrum, anterior 30 4 26 6.5 Maintained closure Maintained closure Complete dehiscence None
Z02-B-AW Body, anterior 25 3 24 8 Maintained closure Partial dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
Z03-B-PW Body, posterior 20 3 26 8.7 Maintained closure Partial dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
Z03-B-AW Body, anterior 25 3 14 4.7 Maintained closure Maintained closure Complete dehiscence None
Z03-A-AW Antrum, anterior 30 4 23 5.8 Maintained closure Maintained closure Complete dehiscence None
Z04-B-PW Body, posterior 25 3 42 14 Maintained closure Complete dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
Z04-B-AW Body, anterior 30 4 27 6.8 Maintained closure Partial dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
Z04-A-PW Antrum, posterior 30 5 34 6.8 Maintained closure Maintained closure Complete dehiscence None

POD, postoperative day; Z01, body posterior 1, antrum anterior 2; Z02, body anterior 1, antrum posterior 2; Z03, body anterior 2, antrum posterior 1; Z04, body anterior 2, antrum posterior 1; partial dehiscence, any visible gap with exposed submucosa, but with at least one stitch maintaining partial bridging; complete dehiscence, loss of bridging with full re-exposure of the ulcer base (no effective edge-to-edge contact).

Table 3.
Summary of the clinical course and necropsy findings (site-based, n=12)
Variable Estimate
Technical success rate 12/12 (100.0; 95% CI, 73.5–100.0)
Specimen size (mm) 27.5±3.4 (95% CI, 25.36–29.64)
No. of stitches 3.6±0.7 (95% CI, 3.16–4.01)
Closure time (min) 28.1±8.0 (95% CI, 22.99–33.18)
Intraprocedural uncontrolled bleeding 0/12 (0)
Delayed hemorrhage 0/12 (0)
Perforation 0/12 (0)
Peritonitis 0/12 (0)

Values are presented as number/total number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

CI, confidence interval.

  • 1. Ono H, Yao K, Fujishiro M, et al. Guidelines for endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer (second edition). Dig Endosc 2021;33:4–20.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 2. Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Bastiaansen BAJ, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline: update 2022. Endoscopy 2022;54:591–622.ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Lim H, Gong EJ, Min BH, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Endosc 2020;53:663–677.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 4. Veitch AM, Radaelli F, Alikhan R, et al. Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update. Gut 2021;70:1611–1628.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Kono Y, Obayashi Y, Baba Y, et al. Postoperative bleeding risk after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection during antithrombotic drug therapy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;33:453–460.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 6. Tomida H, Yoshio T, Igarashi K, et al. Influence of anticoagulants on the risk of delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter retrospective study. Gastric Cancer 2021;24:179–189.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 7. Tashima T, Ohata K, Sakai E, et al. Efficacy of an over-the-scope clip for preventing adverse events after duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective interventional study. Endoscopy 2018;50:487–496.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Kim TS, Min BH, Baek SY, et al. Antithrombotic therapy increases the risk of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2023;15:2844.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 9. Kobayashi N, Kobara H, Nishiyama N, et al. Comparison of endoscopic closure versus non-closure for post-gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection artificial floor in antithrombotic therapy: a propensity score-matched analysis. Ann Gastroenterol 2023;36:178–184.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Goto O, Oyama T, Ono H, et al. Endoscopic hand-suturing is feasible, safe, and may reduce bleeding risk after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter pilot study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:1195–1202.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Akimoto T, Goto O, Sasaki M, et al. Endoscopic hand suturing for mucosal defect closure after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection may reduce the risk of postoperative bleeding in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy. Dig Endosc 2022;34:123–132.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 12. Akimoto T, Goto O, Sasaki M, et al. Endoscopic suturing promotes healing of mucosal defects after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: endoscopic and histologic analyses in in vivo porcine models (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:1172–1182.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Minato Y, Mori H, Ito F. Endoscopic suturing using a new device to prevent adverse events after endoscopic submucosal dissection: Double-arm-bar Suturing System. Dig Endosc 2022;34:e9–e11.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 14. Mori H, Kobara H, Fujihara S, et al. Feasibility of pure EFTR using an innovative new endoscopic suturing device: the Double-arm-bar Suturing System (with video). Surg Endosc 2014;28:683–690.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 15. Chiba H, Ohata K, Mori H, et al. A novel endoscopic suturing device after endoscopic full-thickness resection of gastric submucosal tumor. Endoscopy 2022;54:E419–E420.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software 'EZR' for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013;48:452–458.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 17. Hatta W, Tsuji Y, Yoshio T, et al. Prediction model of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: BEST-J score. Gut 2021;70:476–484.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Harada H, Suehiro S, Murakami D, et al. Continuous use of low-dose warfarin for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective study. Endosc Int Open 2017;5:E348–E353.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 19. Sugimoto S, Nomura T, Temma T, et al. Closure of gastric mucosal defects using the reopenable-clip over-the-line method to decrease the risk of bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter propensity score-matched case-control study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2025;102:37–46.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Nishiyama N, Kobara H, Kobayashi N, et al. Efficacy of endoscopic ligation with O-ring closure for prevention of bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection under antithrombotic therapy: a prospective observational study. Endoscopy 2022;54:1078–1084.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 21. Ego M, Abe S, Nonaka S, et al. Endoscopic closure utilizing endoloop and endoclips after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection for patients on antithrombotic therapy. Dig Dis Sci 2021;66:2336–2344.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 22. Uozumi T, Abe S, Makiguchi ME, et al. Complications of endoscopic resection in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Clin Endosc 2023;56:409–422.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 23. Gong R, Wang S, Song J, et al. Closure methods for large defects after gastrointestinal endoscopic submucosal dissection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;39:2511–2521.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 24. Kobara H, Tada N, Fujihara S, et al. Clinical and technical outcomes of endoscopic closure of postendoscopic submucosal dissection defects: Literature review over one decade. Dig Endosc 2023;35:216–231.ArticlePubMedPDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Feasibility of Zeosuture M for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection defect closure during anticoagulation: a preclinical porcine study from Japan
        Clin Endosc. 2026;59(4):593-600.   Published online February 24, 2026
        DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2025.329
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      • 2
      • 3
      • 4
      Related articles
      Feasibility of Zeosuture M for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection defect closure during anticoagulation: a preclinical porcine study from Japan
      Image Image Image Image Image
      Fig. 1. Endoscopic suturing devices. (A) Zeosuture M (Zeon Medical). (B) Zeosuture M Mounted on the Distal Tip of the Gastroscope. (C) Zeotieupper S (Zeon Medical). (D) Hookcutter MI (Zeon Medical.).
      Fig. 2. Stepwise mucosal closure using Zeosuture M (Zeon Medical). (A) Post-endoscopic submucosal dissection mucosal defect (ulcer base). (B) The endoscope, equipped with the Zeosuture M at the distal tip, is reinserted; (C) the front arm is positioned at one edge of the defect; (D) the front arm of the opposite side is placed, and the rear arm is used to advance the puncture needle to penetrate the gastric mucosa, passing a suture; (E) the suture traverses both sides of the defect; (F) the suture is tensioned and cinched using the Zeotieupper S through the working channel; (G) after being secured with the suture retainer, the thread is cut with the Hookcutter MI (Zeon Medical); (H) additional stitches are placed in the same manner; (I) complete mucosal closure obtained after three stitches.
      Fig. 3. Follow-up endoscopy after Zeosuture M (Zeon Medical) closure in the porcine models receiving continuous warfarin administration. Z03 antrum anterior: On postoperative day (POD) 4, the closure line remained intact with maintained mucosal apposition and no active bleeding. On POD 8, the defect reopened (complete dehiscence). Z04 body anterior: On POD 4, partial loss of apposition (partial dehiscence) was observed along the closure line, and complete dehiscence was evident on POD 8. No perforations or active hemorrhages were observed in any of the animals.
      Fig. 4. Postoperative day (POD) 8: gross and endoluminal findings. (A) External (serosal) view of the peritoneal cavity showing no turbid ascites, fibrin, or purulent exudate; the serosal surfaces are glistening. (B) External (serosal) view of the stomach around the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) sites showing intact serosa without perforation, hematoma, adhesions, or intraperitoneal hemorrhage. (C) Endoluminal view of the post-ESD ulcer base showing mucosal reopening without active bleeding or visible transmural defect, consistent with the absence of peritonitis on POD 8.
      Graphical abstract

      Fig. 1.

      Fig. 2.

      Fig. 3.

      Fig. 4.

      Graphical abstract

      Feasibility of Zeosuture M for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection defect closure during anticoagulation: a preclinical porcine study from Japan
      Pig ID INR baseline INR at ESD INR POD 8 Survival to POD 8
      Z01 0.99 3.10 2.53 Yes
      Z02 0.95 2.91 1.93 Yes
      Z03 0.98 3.06 1.91 Yes
      Z04 0.95 2.75 2.00 Yes
      Site ID Location Specimen size (mm) Stitches (n) Closure time (min) Time taken/stitch (min) POD 1/2 POD 4 POD 8 Adverse event
      Z01-A-AW Antrum, anterior 25 4 42 10.5 Maintained closure Partial dehisce Complete dehiscence None
      Z01-A-PW Antrum, posterior 30 3 23 7.7 Maintained closure Maintained closure Complete dehiscence None
      Z01-B-PW Body, posterior 30 3 26 8.7 Maintained closure Complete dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
      Z02-A-PW Antrum, posterior 30 4 30 7.5 Maintained closure Complete dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
      Z02-A-AW Antrum, anterior 30 4 26 6.5 Maintained closure Maintained closure Complete dehiscence None
      Z02-B-AW Body, anterior 25 3 24 8 Maintained closure Partial dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
      Z03-B-PW Body, posterior 20 3 26 8.7 Maintained closure Partial dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
      Z03-B-AW Body, anterior 25 3 14 4.7 Maintained closure Maintained closure Complete dehiscence None
      Z03-A-AW Antrum, anterior 30 4 23 5.8 Maintained closure Maintained closure Complete dehiscence None
      Z04-B-PW Body, posterior 25 3 42 14 Maintained closure Complete dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
      Z04-B-AW Body, anterior 30 4 27 6.8 Maintained closure Partial dehiscence Complete dehiscence None
      Z04-A-PW Antrum, posterior 30 5 34 6.8 Maintained closure Maintained closure Complete dehiscence None
      Variable Estimate
      Technical success rate 12/12 (100.0; 95% CI, 73.5–100.0)
      Specimen size (mm) 27.5±3.4 (95% CI, 25.36–29.64)
      No. of stitches 3.6±0.7 (95% CI, 3.16–4.01)
      Closure time (min) 28.1±8.0 (95% CI, 22.99–33.18)
      Intraprocedural uncontrolled bleeding 0/12 (0)
      Delayed hemorrhage 0/12 (0)
      Perforation 0/12 (0)
      Peritonitis 0/12 (0)
      Table 1. Baseline and perioperative values of PT-INR in the animals

      INR, international normalized ratio; PT-INR, prothrombin time INR; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; POD, postoperative day; Z01, body posterior 1, antrum anterior 2; Z02, body anterior 1, antrum posterior 2; Z03, body anterior 2, antrum posterior 1; Z04, body anterior 2, antrum posterior 1.

      Table 2. Procedural and endoscopic outcomes (n=12 sites)

      POD, postoperative day; Z01, body posterior 1, antrum anterior 2; Z02, body anterior 1, antrum posterior 2; Z03, body anterior 2, antrum posterior 1; Z04, body anterior 2, antrum posterior 1; partial dehiscence, any visible gap with exposed submucosa, but with at least one stitch maintaining partial bridging; complete dehiscence, loss of bridging with full re-exposure of the ulcer base (no effective edge-to-edge contact).

      Table 3. Summary of the clinical course and necropsy findings (site-based, n=12)

      Values are presented as number/total number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

      CI, confidence interval.

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Table 3.

      Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
      © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
      Close layer
      TOP