Colonoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Using a Curvilinear Array Transducer: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Curvilinear array ultrasound transducers enable tissue sampling and have therapeutic capabilities. Nevertheless, colonic intubation and maneuvering with these transducers is technically challenging and is therefore typically limited to the rectosigmoid area. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and diagnostic yield of colonoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in deep colonic intubation. IMPACT OF INNOVATION: The impact of this innovation is to enable tissue sampling of colonic and extracolonic lesions guided by endoscopic ultrasound. TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Curvilinear array ultrasound is used in the evaluation of luminal and extraluminal colonic diseases. Thirteen patients underwent colonoscopic ultrasound with a curvilinear array ultrasound endoscope in a single center for subepithelial lesions, cancer staging, and extracolonic lesions from July 2015 to February 2021. Endosonography was performed using an Olympus EU-ME1 and GF-UCT 180 with a 5-12MHz curvilinear array transducer. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who were successfully scanned with the endoscopic ultrasound. The secondary outcomes included the success rate of fine-needle aspiration, the diagnostic yield of the tissue samples, and the adverse events related to the procedure. PRELIMINARY RESULTS: A total of 13 female patients underwent colonoscopic ultrasound. All patients (100%, 13/13) were successfully scanned. Fine-needle aspiration was deemed necessary and successfully performed in 100% (5/5) of the patients. Tissue samples collected by fine-needle aspiration resulted in a diagnostic yield of 60%, and no adverse events resulted from this intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of performing colonoscopic ultrasound with a curvilinear array transducer. Fine-needle aspiration for subepithelial, colonic, and extracolonic lesions is feasible and safe in this setting with no adverse events reported in our study. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Future research should be directed toward validating colonoscopic ultrasound with a curvilinear array transducer technique in prospective randomized trials. Studies evaluating the feasibility and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions in the colon, such as abscess drainage and enteral anastomosis, should be considered.

Suction versus slow-pull for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic tumors: a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Suction (S) is commonly used to improve cell acquisition during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Slow-pull (SP) sampling is another technique that might procure good quality specimens with less bloodiness. We aimed to determine if SP improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic solid masses were randomized to four needle passes with both techniques in an alternate fashion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. Cellularity and bloodiness of cytological samples were assessed and compared according to the technique. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of suction vs. SP were 95.2% vs. 92.3%; 100% vs. 100; 95.7% vs. 93%, respectively. As to the association of methods, they were 95.6, 100 and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive values for S and SP were 100%. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between S and SP (p = 0.344). Cellularity of samples obtained with SP and Suction were equivalent in both smear evaluation (p = 0.119) and cell-block (0.980). Bloodiness of SP and suction techniques were similar as well. CONCLUSIONS: S and SP techniques provide equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Association of methods seems to improve diagnostic yield. Suction does not increase the bloodiness of samples compared to slow-pull.

Efficacy and Safety of Stents in the Treatment of Fistula After Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Fistula development is a serious complication after bariatric surgery. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of fistula closure and complications associated with endoscopic stent treatment of fistulas, developed after bariatric surgeries, particularly Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and gastric sleeve (GS). Studies involving patients with fistula after RYGB or GS and those who received stent treatment only were selected. The analyzed outcomes were overall success rate of fistula closure, mean number of stents per patient, mean stent dwelling time, and procedure-associated complications. Current evidence from identified studies demonstrates that, in selected patients, endoscopic stent treatment of fistulas after GS or RYGB can be safe and effective.

Manejo endoscópico o quirúrgico de las perforaciones transmurales duodenales post CPRE. Un estudio randomizado prospectivo / Surgical or endoscopic management for post-ERCP large transmural duodenal perforations: a randomized prospective trial

Duodenal perforations are an uncommon adverse event during ERCP. Patients can develop significant morbidity and mortality. Even though surgery has been used to manage duodenal complications, therapeutic endoscopy has seen significant advances. Objective: To compare endoscopic approach with surgical intervention in patients with duodenal perforations post-ERCP. Material and Methods: prospective randomized study in a tertiary center with 23 patients divided in 2 groups. Within 12 hours after the event, the patients underwent endoscopic or surgical approach. Endoscopic approach included closure of the perforation with endoclips and SEMS. Surgical repair included hepaticojejunostomy, suture of the perforation or duodenal suture. The success was defined as closure of the defect. Secondary outcomes included mortality, adverse events, days of hospitalization and costs. Results: The success was 100% in both groups. There was one death in the endoscopic group secondary to sepsis. There was no statistical difference in mortality or adverse events. We noticed statistical difference in favor of the endoscopic group considering shorter hospitalization (4.1 days versus 15.2 days, with p=0.0123) and lower cost per patient (U$14,700 versus U$19,872, with p=0.0103). Conclusions: Endoscopic approach with SEMS and endoclips is an alternative to surgery in large transmural duodenal perforations post-ERCP...

Introducción: Las perforaciones duodenales son un evento adverso poco frecuente durante la CPRE. Los pacientes pueden desarrollar morbilidad y mortalidad significativas. La cirugía se ha utilizado para tratar las complicaciones duodenales, pero la endoscopia terapéutica ha visto avances significativos. Objetivo: comparar abordaje endoscópico con intervención quirúrgica en perforaciones duodenales post CPRE. Materiales y Métodos: estudio prospectivo aleatorizado en un centro terciario con 23 pacientes divididos en 2 grupos. 12 horas después del evento, los pacientes fueron sometidos a tratamiento endoscópico o quirúrgico. El abordaje endoscópico incluyó el cierre de la perforación con endoclips y stent metálico autoexpandible. La reparación quirúrgica incluyó hepaticoyeyunostomía, sutura de la perforación o sutura duodenal. El éxito se definió como el cierre del defecto. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron: mortalidad, eventos adversos, días de hospitalización y costos. Resultados: El éxito fue del 100% en ambos grupos. Hubo una muerte en el grupo endoscópico secundaria a sepsis. No hubo diferencia estadísticamente significativa. Hubo una diferencia estadística a favor del grupo endoscópico en vista de la hospitalización más corta (4,1 días frente a 15,2 días, p=0,0123) y menor costo por paciente (U$ 14 700 frente a U$ 19 872, p=0,0103). Conclusión: El abordaje endoscópico es una alternativa a la cirugía en perforaciones duodenales post CPRE...

Surgical or endoscopic management for post-ERCP large transmural duodenal perforations: a randomized prospective trial.

INTRODUCTION: Duodenal perforations are an uncommon adverse event during ERCP. Patients can develop significant morbidity and mortality. Even though surgery has been used to manage duodenal complications, therapeutic endoscopy has seen significant advances. OBJECTIVE: To compare endoscopic approach with surgical intervention in patients with duodenal perforations post-ERCP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: prospective randomized study in a tertiary center with 23 patients divided in 2 groups. Within 12 hours after the event, the patients underwent endoscopic or surgical approach. Endoscopic approach included closure of the perforation with endoclips and SEMS. Surgical repair included hepaticojejunostomy, suture of the perforation or duodenal suture. The success was defined as closure of the defect. Secondary outcomes included mortality, adverse events, days of hospitalization and costs. RESULTS: The success was 100% in both groups. There was one death in the endoscopic group secondary to sepsis. There was no statistical difference in mortality or adverse events. We noticed statistical difference in favor of the endoscopic group considering shorter hospitalization (4.1 days versus 15.2 days, with p=0.0123) and lower cost per patient (U$14,700 versus U$19,872, with p=0.0103). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic approach with SEMS and endoclips is an alternative to surgery in large transmural duodenal perforations post-ERCP.