A History of Flexible Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Surgeons have been involved, since the beginning, in the development and evolution of endoscopy. They have been instrumental in developing new methods and have been actively involved in most of the therapeutic applications. The continued evolution of endoscopic technique is inevitable and will involve the integration of new technology with innovative thinking.

Theranostic Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Bringing Healing Light to the Lumen.

Current conventional endoscopes have restricted the accuracy of treatment delivery and monitoring. Over the past decade, there have been major developments in nanotechnology and light triggered therapy, potentially allowing a better detection of challenging lesions and targeted treatment of malignancies in the gastrointestinal tract. Theranostics is a developing form of personalized medicine because it combines diagnosis and targeted treatment delivered in one step using advances in nanotechnology. This review describes the light-triggered therapies (including photodynamic, photothermal, and photoimmunotherapies), nanotechnological advances with nanopowder, nanostent, nanogels, and nanoparticles, enhancements brought to endoscopic ultrasound, in addition to experimental endoscopic techniques, combining both enhanced diagnoses and therapies, including a developed prototype of a "smart" multifunctional endoscope for localized colorectal cancer, near-infrared laser endoscope targeting the gastrointestinal stromal tumors, the concept of endocapsule for obscure gastrointestinal bleed, and a proof-of-concept therapeutic capsule using ultrasound-mediated targeted drug delivery. Hence, the following term has been proposed encompassing these technologies: "Theranostic gastrointestinal endoscopy." Future efforts for integration of these technologies into clinical practice would be directed toward translational and clinical trials translating into a more personalized and interdisciplinary diagnosis and treatment, shorter procedural time, higher precision, higher cost-effectiveness, and less need for repetitive procedures.

Evolution of Endoscopic Bariatric Devices: From Development to Practice.

OBJECTIVES: To familiarize medical providers with the Food and Drug Administration approval process for antiobesity devices and to provide a brief overview of current and promising endoscopy-based bariatric devices. METHODS: Literature review of published scholarly articles. RESULTS: There has been a rapid development of novel endoscopic bariatric therapies in recent years, resulting in the approval of multiple devices. Several promising endoscopic strategies are currently under investigation and review. The Food and Drug Administration has laid down an objective-tiered model to review antiobesity device applications. DISCUSSION: Endoscopic bariatric devices provide a new and promising paradigm in obesity management both as first-line therapy and as adjunctive treatment to medical and surgical strategies. Physicians who plan to offer endoscopic bariatric therapy in their practice need appropriate understanding of the regulatory processes involved in the development and approval of such devices.

Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESDO), and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations for malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliative treatment of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 For patients with longer life expectancy, ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative or in addition to stenting in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia. Brachytherapy may provide a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life compared to SEMS placement alone. (Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.) 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement as the preferred treatment for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistula (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 ESGE does not recommend the use of concurrent external radiotherapy and esophageal stent treatment. SEMS placement is also not recommended as a bridge to surgery or prior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. It is associated with a high incidence of adverse events and alternative satisfactory options such as placement of a feeding tube are available. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) Main recommendations for benign disease 1 ESGE recommends against the use of self-expandable stents (SEMSs) as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and costs (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of SEMSs as therapy for refractory benign esophageal strictures (weak recommendation, moderate evidence). Stents should usually be removed at a maximum of 3 months (strong recommendation, weak quality evidence). 3 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures, because of their lack of embedment and ease of removability (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 For the removal of partially covered esophageal SEMSs that are embedded, ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for treating esophageal leaks, fistulas, and perforations. The optimal stenting duration remains unclear and should be individualized. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) 6 ESGE recommends placement of a SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive esophageal variceal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESDO), and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations for malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliative treatment of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 For patients with longer life expectancy, ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative or in addition to stenting in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia. Brachytherapy may provide a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life compared to SEMS placement alone. (Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.) 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement as the preferred treatment for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistula (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 ESGE does not recommend the use of concurrent external radiotherapy and esophageal stent treatment. SEMS placement is also not recommended as a bridge to surgery or prior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. It is associated with a high incidence of adverse events and alternative satisfactory options such as placement of a feeding tube are available. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) Main recommendations for benign disease 1 ESGE recommends against the use of self-expandable stents (SEMSs) as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and costs (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of SEMSs as therapy for refractory benign esophageal strictures (weak recommendation, moderate evidence). Stents should usually be removed at a maximum of 3 months (strong recommendation, weak quality evidence). 3 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures, because of their lack of embedment and ease of removability (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 For the removal of partially covered esophageal SEMSs that are embedded, ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for treating esophageal leaks, fistulas, and perforations. The optimal stenting duration remains unclear and should be individualized. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) 6 ESGE recommends placement of a SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive esophageal variceal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

The use of an endostapler in the treatment of supralevator abscess of intersphincteric origin.

AIM: This technical note describes the use of an endostapler for the definitive treatment of supralevator abscess upward from an intersphincteric origin. METHOD: A two-stage treatment was performed. First an endoanal drainage was performed by inserting a mushroom catheter in the supralevator abscess cavity. In the second stage transanal unroofing of the fistula was performed with an endostapler. RESULTS: Since 2011, three patients have been treated in this way. After 2 years of follow up, none of the patients had recurrence of the abscess or been referred for anal incontinence. CONCLUSION: The use of an endostapler in the treatment of supralevator abscess of intersphincteric origin may be an alternative to decrease the risk of recurrence and incontinence.

Catheter-free method is sufficient for preparation for transnasal endoscopy: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although transnasal endoscopy (TNE) is generally a comfortable and safe procedure, it has some disadvantages, such as complicated preprocessing and occasional repulsion reaction during catheterization. In an attempt to simplify the preprocessing method, the efficacy of a catheter-free method in which a catheter is not inserted into the nasal cavity was assessed. METHODS: The present study was a prospective, open-label, single-center, randomized controlled study with parallel assignment allocation 1:1. Between March 2009 and August 2009, a total of 93 TNE-naïve patients were enrolled and randomized. Patients were prospectively randomized into two groups (catheter-free vs catheter-insertion method). Patients who prepared according to the catheter-free method and who were unsuccessful underwent the catheter-insertion method. Clinical characteristics, success rate, complications, vital signs, acceptability, and tolerability were assessed and compared. RESULTS: Success rates of the catheter-free and catheter-insertion methods were 88% (n=44) and 88% (n=38) (P>0.05), respectively. Causes of failure in the catheter-free method included severe rhinalgia (n=1, 2%) and narrowing of the nasal cavity (n=5, 10%). Causes of failure in the catheter-insertion method included narrowing of the nasal cavity (n=5, 11%). Six patients whose TNE failed with the catheter-free method also experienced failed TNE with the catheter-insertion method. There were no statistical differences in vital signs, acceptability, and tolerability. CONCLUSION: The catheter-free method is sufficient for preparation for TNE. The success rate of TNE depends more on the structure of the nasal cavity than the preprocessing method.