Fixation of the proximal flange of a lumen-apposing metal stent using a through-the-scope endoscopic suturing system to prevent stent migration in single-session EUS-directed transgastric ERCP: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: With the global obesity pandemic, clinical scenarios requiring urgent ERCP in patients with gastric bypass surgery are on the rise, and single-session EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (SS-EDGE) can effectively address these technical challenges. The aim of this study was to evaluate and describe the safe and effective use of a through-the-scope endoscopic suturing system for anchoring the lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) during SS-EDGE. METHODS: Six patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) underwent SS-EDGE at our center. A through-the-scope endoscopic suturing system was used for anchoring the LAMSs during SS-EDGE. RESULTS: Clinical and technical success was achieved in all 6 patients without any adverse events related to the procedure. No stent migration, pneumoperitoneum, or GI perforation was noted. At the 4-week follow-up, no stent migration was noted, and the through-the-scope suturing system remained anchored. LAMSs along with tacks were removed, and gastric fistulae were successfully closed endoscopically in all patients to prevent weight gain. CONCLUSIONS: Use of through-the-scope endoscopic suturing can be a safe, reliable, and potentially cost-effective novel technique for LAMS fixation to successfully perform SS-EDGE in RYGB patients.

Initial multicenter experience using a novel articulating through-the-scope traction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Background and study aims A single-operator, articulating, through-the-scope (TTS) traction device was recently developed to facilitate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Clinical data on the performance of this device are limited. We report an initial multicenter experience with ESD using this articulating TTS traction device. Patients and methods Retrospective analysis on all consecutive patients who underwent ESD using this traction device (T-ESD) at five centers between August 2021 and December 2022. Endpoints included: rates of en-bloc resection, R0 resection, curative resection, and adverse events. Results Thirty-six patients (median age 64.8 years; 47.2% women) underwent ESD (median lesion size 40 mm; interquartile range [IRQ]: 27.5-67.5) for lesions in the esophagus (n=2), stomach (n=8), sigmoid colon (n=6), and rectum (n=20). Submucosal fibrosis was encountered in one-third of the lesions (33.3%). Median ESD time was 104.6 minutes (IQR: 65-122). En-bloc, R0 and curative resection were achieved in 94.4%, 91.6%, and 97.2%, respectively. The single patient with non-curative resection of an invasive rectal adenocarcinoma underwent surgery. There were no cases of delayed bleeding or perforation. There was no recurrence on surveillance endoscopy (n=20) at a median of 6 months (IQR: 3.75-6). Conclusions This initial multicenter experience demonstrates high resection rates and excellent safety profile when performing ESD with this novel articulating TTS device. Dynamic real-time traction may lower the technical difficulty of ESD. Additional studies are needed to assess its cost-effectiveness and compare its usefulness with other traction devices and techniques during ESD.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colonic Mucosal Neoplasia and Evaluation of Long-Term Recurrence: A Single-Center Experience of 500 Cases.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an alternative to surgery for the treatment of large laterally spreading lesions. Residual or recurrent adenoma is a major limitation. This study aimed to quantify early and late recurrences and to assess its associated risk factors. METHODS: The study was a single-center, multiendoscopist, longitudinal study conducted between January 1, 2013 and April 26, 2017. A total of 480 patients with 500 polyps who underwent an endoscopic resection were included. Surveillance colonoscopy (SC) was performed at 4 to 6 months (SC1) and 16 to 18 months (SC2). RESULTS: At SC1, early recurrence was noted in 77 of 354 (21.8%) lesions; 76 (98.7%) were treated endoscopically. The remaining 277 of 354 (78.2%) lesions had no recurrence at SC1; only 41 lesions (15%) were followed up at SC2. Recurrence at SC2 was found in 4 lesions (9.8%), all of which were treated endoscopically. Lesion size >40 mm was associated with recurrence. Recurrence at both SC1 and SC2 was successfully treated endoscopically in 78 of 81 lesions (96.3%). CONCLUSIONS: EMR is an effective, minimally invasive technique for the treatment of large laterally spreading lesions. Although recurrence is a concern, its risk is low (21.8% on SC1 and 9.8% on SC2) and was managed endoscopically in 96.3% cases on follow-up endoscopy.

Colon mucosal neoplasia referred for endoscopic mucosal resection: Recurrence of adenomas and prediction of submucosal invasion.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective and minimally invasive alternative to surgery for large polyps and laterally spreading lesions. Gross morphology and surface characteristics may help predict submucosal invasion of the lesion (SMIL) during endoscopic evaluation. This is one of the largest single-center studies reporting endoscopic mucosal resection for larger (≥ 20 mm) colorectal lesions in the United States. AIM: To determine the recurrence rate of adenomas and endoscopic features that may predict submucosal invasion of colonic mucosal neoplasia. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all the patients referred for endoscopic mucosal resection for lesions ≥ 20 mm, spanning a period from January 2013 to February 2017. The main outcome measure was identifying features that may predict submucosal invasion of mucosal lesions and predict recurrence of adenomas on follow-up surveillance colonoscopy performed at 4-6 mo. RESULTS: A total of 480 patients with 500 lesions were included in the study. The median age was 68 (Inter quantile range: 14) with 52% males. The most common lesion location was ascending colon (161; 32%). Paris classification 0-IIa (Flat elevation of mucosa - 316; 63.2%); Kudo Pit Pattern IIIs (192; 38%) and Granular surface morphology (260; 52%) were most prevalent. Submucosal invasion was present in 23 (4.6%) out of 500 lesions. The independent risk factors for SMIL were Kudo Pit Pattern IIIL + IV and V (Odds ratio: 4.5; P value < 0.004) and Paris classification 0-IIc (Odds ratio: 18.2; P value < 0.01). Out of 500, 354 post-endoscopic mucosal resection scars were examined at surveillance colonoscopy. Recurrence was noted in 21.8% (77 cases). CONCLUSION: There was overall low prevalence of SMIL in our study. Kudo pit pattern (IIIL + IV and V) and Paris classification 0-IIc were the only factors identified as an independent risk factor for submucosal invasion. The independent risk factor for recurrence was adenoma size (> 40 mm). Almost all recurrences (98.8%) were treated endoscopically.

Splenic injuries secondary to colonoscopy: Rare but serious complication.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is a safe and routine diagnostic and therapeutic procedure for evaluation of large bowel diseases. Most common procedure related complications include bleeding and perforation but rarely a splenic Injury. AIM: To investigate the reason for colonoscopy, presentation of patient with spleen injury, types of injury, diagnosis, management and outcomes of patients. METHODS: A structured search on four databases was done and 45 articles with 68 patients were selected. The reason for colonoscopy, presentation of patient with spleen injury, types of injury, diagnosis, management and outcomes of patients were identified and analyzed using SPSS. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 62.7 years with 64% females. Twenty two percent had a complete splenic rupture with colonoscopy while 63% had subcapsular hematoma, spleen laceration and spleen avulsion. The most common reason for colonoscopy was screening (46%) followed by diagnostic colonoscopy (28%). Eighty seven percent of patients presented with abdominal pain. Patients with spleen rupture mostly required splenectomy (47%), while minor spleen hematomas and lacerations were managed conservatively (38%). Six percent of the patients were managed with proximal splenic artery splenic embolization and 4% were managed with laparoscopic repair. The overall mortality was 10% while 77% had complete recovery. The reason of colonoscopy against presentation specifically, abdominal pain showed no statistical significance P = 0.69. The indication of colonoscopy had no significant impact on incidence of splenic injury (P = 0.89). Majority of the patients (47%) were managed with splenectomy while the rest were managed conservatively (P = 0.04). This association was moderately strong at a cramer's V test (0.34). The Fisher exact test showed a higher mortality with spleen rupture (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Spleen rupture due to colonoscopy is a significant concern and is associated with high mortality. The management of the patients can be individualized based on clinical presentation.