Endoscopic full-thickness resection of polyps involving the appendiceal orifice: a multicenter international experience.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice remains a challenge. We aimed to report outcomes with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for the resection of appendiceal lesions and identify factors associated with the occurrence of appendicitis. METHODS: This was a retrospective study at 18 tertiary-care centers (USA 12, Canada 1, Europe 5) between November 2016 and August 2020. Consecutive patients who underwent resection of an appendiceal orifice lesion using the FTRD were included. The primary outcome was the rate of R0 resection in neoplastic lesions, defined as negative lateral and deep margins on post-resection histologic evaluation. Secondary outcomes included the rates of: technical success (en bloc resection), clinical success (technical success without need for further surgical intervention), post-resection appendicitis, and polyp recurrence. RESULTS: 66 patients (32 women; mean age 64) underwent resection of colonic lesions involving the appendiceal orifice (mean [standard deviation] size, 14.5 (6.2) mm), with 40 (61 %) being deep, extending into the appendiceal lumen. Technical success was achieved in 59/66 patients (89 %), of which, 56 were found to be neoplastic lesions on post-resection pathology. Clinical success was achieved in 53/66 (80 %). R0 resection was achieved in 52/56 (93 %). Of the 58 patients in whom EFTR was completed who had no prior history of appendectomy, appendicitis was reported in 10 (17 %), with six (60 %) requiring surgical appendectomy. Follow-up colonoscopy was completed in 41 patients, with evidence of recurrence in five (12 %). CONCLUSIONS: The FTRD is a promising non-surgical alternative for resecting appendiceal lesions, but appendicitis occurs in 1/6 cases.

Over-the-scope clip-assisted endoscopic full thickness resection: a video-based case series.

BACKGROUND: In the management of mucosal neoplasm and early cancer, therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy evolved from simply polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), to endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR). Full thickness clip closure followed by transmural resection mimics surgical principles. It is safe, effective, and technically less demanding compared to other techniques. Over-the-scope clip (OTSC)-assisted EFTR or OTSC-EFTR enables the endoscopists to manage difficult lesions. METHODS: We video recorded and report our 1-year single center experience of 12 consecutive EFTR cases since the dedicated OTSC-EFTR device was approved in the USA. RESULTS: We demonstrate that OTSC-EFTR can be very useful to manage residual neoplastic tissue that cannot be removed during conventional mucosal resection due to deeper invasion, submucosal fibrosis, scaring from prior intervention, and appendiceal involvement. Caution should be used for EFTR of the ileocecal valve lesions. CONCLUSION: We propose that layered or stacked biopsy of the appendiceal stump after EFTR should be performed to rule out a positive residual base. Due to the limited size of the FTRD resection hood (13 mm internal diameter × 23 mm depth), for larger sessile adenomas in the colon, we propose a hybrid approach for complete removal: piecemeal EMR for tumor debulking followed by OTSC-EFTR to achieve R0 resection. We believe OTSC-EFTR offers safety and efficiency with very high success rate.

Esophageal Variceal Ligation Monotherapy versus Combined Ligation and Sclerotherapy for the Treatment of Esophageal Varices.

Currently, endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) monotherapy is the standard therapy for managing esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Patients generally need several sessions of endoscopy to achieve optimal variceal ablation, and the varices can recur afterward. Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) is an older technique, associated with certain complications. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of EVL alone versus combined EVL and EIS in the treatment of esophageal varices. This retrospective study included 84 patients, of which 40 patients were treated with EVL monotherapy and 44 patients were treated with combined EVL + EIS. The main outcomes were rebleeding rates, recurrence at six months, number of treatment sessions, length of hospital stay, cost of hospitalization, and procedural complications. At six months, the rebleeding rate and recurrence were significantly lower in the EVL + EIS group compared to the EVL group (2.3% versus 15.0%; and 9.1% versus 27.5%, respectively). The number of treatment sessions, length of hospital stay, and cost of hospitalization were significantly lower in the EVL + EIS group compared to those in the EVL group (2.3 ± 0.6 versus 3.2 ± 0.8 times; 14.5 ± 3.4 versus 23.5 ± 5.9 days; and 23918.6 ± 4220.4 versus 26165.2 ± 4765.1 renminbi, respectively). Chest pain was significantly lower in the EVL + EIS group compared to that in the EVL group (15.9% versus 45.0%). There were no statistically significant differences in the presence of fever or esophageal stricture in both groups. In conclusion, combined EVL + EIS showed less rebleeding rates and recurrence at six months and less chest pain and was more cost effective compared to EVL alone in the treatment of gastroesophageal varices.