Novel through-the-scope suture closure of colonic EMR defects (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Large colon polyps removed by EMR can be complicated by delayed bleeding. Prophylactic defect clip closure can reduce post-EMR bleeding. Larger defects can be challenging to close using through-the-scope clips (TTSCs), and proximal defects are difficult to reach using over-the-scope techniques. A novel, through-the-scope suturing (TTSS) device allows direct closure of mucosal defects without scope withdrawal. The goal of this study was to evaluate the rate of delayed bleeding after the closure of large colon polyp EMR sites with TTSS. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed involving 13 centers. All defect closure by TTSS after EMR of colon polyps ≥2 cm from January 2021 to February 2022 were included. The primary outcome was rate of delayed bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients (52% female; mean age, 65 years) underwent EMR of predominantly right-sided (n = 62 [66%]) colon polyps (median size, 35 mm; interquartile range, 30-40 mm) followed by defect closure with TTSS during the study period. All defects were successfully closed with TTSS alone (n = 62 [66%]) or with TTSS and TTSCs (n = 32 [34%]), using a median of 1 (interquartile range, 1-1) TTSS system. Delayed bleeding occurred in 3 patients (3.2%), with 2 requiring repeated endoscopic evaluation/treatment (moderate). CONCLUSION: TTSS alone or with TTSCs was effective in achieving complete closure of all post-EMR defects, despite a large lesion size. After TTSS closure with or without adjunctive devices, delayed bleeding was seen in 3.2% of cases. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings before wider adoption of TTSS for large polypectomy closure.

Gender-Specific Factors Influencing Gastroenterologists to Pursue Careers in Advanced Endoscopy: Perceptions vs Reality.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020, only 19% of 63 matched advanced endoscopy (AE) fellows were women. This study evaluates the gender-specific factors that influence gastroenterologists to pursue careers in AE. METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed to gastroenterology fellows and attendings through various gastroenterology society online forums. Data were collected on demographics, training, mentorship, current practice, family planning, and career satisfaction. RESULTS: Women comprised 71.1% of the 332 respondents. 24.7% of female fellows plan to pursue an AE career compared with 37.5% of male fellows (P = 0.195). The main motivating factor for both genders was interest in the subject area. Interest in another subspecialty was the main deterring factor for both genders. Women were more deterred by absence of same-sex mentors (P < 0.001), perception of gender-based bias in the workplace (P = 0.009), family planning (P = 0.018), fertility/pregnancy risks from radiation (P < 0.001), and lack of ergonomic equipment (P = 0.003). AE gastroenterologists of both genders were satisfied with their career decision and would recommend the field to any fellow. Most respondents (64%) believed that more female role models/mentors would improve representation of women in AE. DISCUSSION: There are multiple gender-specific factors that deter women from pursuing AE. Increasing the number of female role models is strongly perceived to improve representation of women in AE. Most AE attendings are satisfied with their career and would recommend it to fellows of any gender. Thus, early targeted mentorship of female trainees has potential to improve recruitment of women to the field.

Survey Finds Gender Disparities Impact Both Women Mentors and Mentees in Gastroenterology.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroenterologists at all levels of practice benefit from formal mentoring. Much of the current literature on mentoring in gastroenterology is based on expert opinion rather than data. In this study, we aimed to identify gender-related barriers to successful mentoring relationships from the mentor and mentee perspectives. METHODS: A voluntary, web-based survey was distributed to physicians at 20 academic institutions across the United States. Overall, 796 gastroenterology fellows and faculty received the survey link, with 334 physicians responding to the survey (42% response rate), of whom 299 (90%; 129 women and 170 men) completed mentorship questions and were included in analysis. RESULTS: Responses of women and men were compared. Compared with men, more women preferred a mentor of the same gender (38.6% women vs 4.2% men, P < 0.0001) but less often had one (45.5% vs 70.2%, P < 0.0001). Women also reported having more difficulty finding a mentor (44.4% vs 16.0%, P < 0.0001) and more often cited inability to identify a mentor of the same gender as a contributing factor (12.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.0004). More women mentors felt comfortable advising women mentees about work-life balance (88.3% vs 63.8%, P = 0.0005). Nonetheless, fewer women considered themselves effective mentors (33.3% vs 52.6%, P = 0.03). More women reported feeling pressured to mentor because of their gender (39.5% vs 0.9% of men, P < 0.0001). Despite no gender differences, one-third of respondents reported negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to mentor and be mentored. DISCUSSION: Inequities exist in the experiences of women mentees and mentors in gastroenterology, which may affect career advancement and job satisfaction.