Endoscopic Ultrasound View of Pneumatosis Cystoides Intestinalis.

Pneumatosis cystoid intestinalis (PCI) is a rare condition, with a worldwide incidence of 0.3-1.2%. PCI is classified into primary (idiopathic) and secondary forms, with 15% and 85% of presentations, respectively. This pathology was associated with a wide variety of underlining etiologies to explain the abnormal accumulation of gas within the submucosa (69.9%), subserosa (25.5%), or both layers (4.6%). Many patients endure misdiagnosis, mistreatment, or even inadequate surgical exploration. In this case, a patient presented acute diverticulitis, after treatment, a control colonoscopy was performed that found multiple rounds and elevated lesions. To further study the subepithelial lesion (SEL), a colorectal endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was performed with an overtube in the same procedure. For safe insertion of the curvilinear array EUS, an overtube with colonoscopy was positioned through the sigmoid as described by Cheng et al. The EUS evaluation evidenced air reverberation in the submucosal layer. The pathological analysis was consistent with PCI's diagnosis. The diagnosis of PCI is usually made by colonoscopy (51.9%), surgery (40.6%), and radiological findings (10.9%). Although the diagnosis can be made by radiological studies, a colorectal EUS and colonoscopy can be made in the same section without radiation and with high precision. As it is a rare disease, there are not enough studies to define the best approach, although colorectal EUS should be preferred for a reliable diagnosis.

Endoscopic resection of esophageal and gastric submucosal tumors from the muscularis propria layer: submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection versus endoscopic submucosal excavation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) and endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) are less-invasive therapeutic alternatives to surgical resection for the removal of esophageal or gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). This study aimed to comparing STER versus ESE for the resection of esophageal and gastric SMTs from the muscularis propria. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines through December 2020. Pooled outcome measures included complete resection, en bloc resection, bleeding, perforation, adverse events, recurrence, procedure duration, and length of hospital stay. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) was calculated as well as Peto time-to-event analyses to determine recurrence rate. RESULTS: Five retrospective cohort studies (n = 269 STER versus n = 319 ESE) were included. There was no difference in rates of complete resection [RR: 1.01 (95% CI 0.94, 1.07)], en bloc resection [RR: 0.95 (95% CI 0.84, 1.08)], recurrence [OR: 1.18 (95% CI 0.33, 4.16)], and total adverse events [RR: 1.33 (95% CI 0.78, 2.27)]. Specific adverse events including rates of perforation [RR: 0.57 (95% CI 0.12, 2.74)] and bleeding [RR: 1.21 (95% CI 0.30, 4.88)] were not different between STER and ESE. There was a statistical difference when evaluating procedure time, with the STER group presenting significantly larger values [MD: 24.62 min (95% CI 20.04, 29.20)]. CONCLUSION: STER and ESE were associated with similar efficacy and safety; however, ESE was associated with a significantly decreased time to complete the procedure.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stent placement and surgical gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life, thereby necessitating effective and safe palliative treatment. As such, we sought to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) versus duodenal stent (DS) placement and surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) for palliation of malignant GOO. METHODS: Searches of electronic databases were performed to identify studies comparing EUS-GE versus DS and/or SGJ for palliative treatment of GOO. Outcomes included technical and clinical success, severe adverse events (SAEs), rate of stent obstruction (including tumor ingrowth), length of hospital stay (LOS), reintervention, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Differences in dichotomous and continuous outcomes were reported as risk difference and mean difference, respectively. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 513 patients) were included. When compared to DS placement, EUS-GE was associated with a higher clinical success, fewer SAEs, decreased stent obstruction, lower rate of tumor ingrowth, and decreased need for reintervention. Compared to SGJ, EUS-GE was associated with a lower technical success; however, LOS was significantly decreased. All other outcomes including clinical success, SAEs, reintervention rate, and 30-day mortality were not significantly different between an EUS-guided versus surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE was associated with significantly improved outcomes compared to DS placement for palliative treatment of malignant GOO. Despite SGJ possessing a higher technical success compared to EUS-GE, LOS was significantly longer with no difference in clinical success or rate of adverse events.

Biliary drainage in inoperable malignant biliary distal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic drainage remains the treatment of choice for unresectable or inoperable malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of plastic stent (PS) vs self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) placement for treatment of MDBO. METHODS: This meta-analysis was developed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and grey literature to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing clinical success, adverse events, stent dysfunction rate, reintervention rate, duration of stent patency, and mean survival. Risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 statistic. Subgroup analyses were performed by SEMS type. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were included in this study, totaling 1005 patients. There was no difference in clinical success (RD = -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.01, 0.07; I 2 = 0%), rate of adverse events (RD = -0.03, 95%CI: -0.10, 0.03; I 2 = 57%), and mean patient survival (MD = -0.63, 95%CI: -18.07, 19.33; I 2 = 54%) between SEMS vs PS placement. However, SEMS placement was associated with a lower rate of reintervention (RD = -0.34, 95%CI: -0.46, -0.22; I 2 = 57%) and longer duration of stent patency (MD = 125.77 d, 95%CI: 77.5, 174.01). Subgroup analyses revealed both covered and uncovered SEMS improved stent patency compared to PS (RD = 152.25, 95%CI: 37.42, 267.07; I 2 = 98% and RD = 101.5, 95%CI: 38.91, 164.09; I 2 = 98%; respectively). Stent dysfunction was higher in the covered SEMS group (RD = -0.21, 95%CI: -0.32, -0.1; I² = 205%), with no difference in the uncovered SEMS group (RD = -0.08, 95%CI: -0.56, 0.39; I² = 87%). CONCLUSION: While both stent types possessed a similar clinical success rate, complication rate, and patient-associated mean survival for treatment of MDBO, SEMS were associated with a longer duration of stent patency compared to PS.