Flexible endoscopic treatment of Zenker's diverticulum-a retrospective, observational multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy recommends a primarily flexible endoscopic approach for the treatment of Zenker's diverticulum. Due to the rarity of the disorder, evidence for its effectiveness and safety comes mainly from small, retrospective, single-center studies. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study, data from six German tertiary referral centers were analyzed. The primary outcome parameters were technical and clinical success; among the secondary outcomes, the rates of adverse events (AE) and re-admission with symptomatic recurrence and mortality were the most relevant. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2024, 384 treatments were performed in 327 patients (61.8% male, mean age 74.70 (± 10.60)). Incision methods/techniques were 250 needle knives, 44 ESD knives, 64 stag beetle knives, 24 staplers, one APC-probe, and one Z-POEM. The Zenker's diverticulum overtube was used in 65.1%, prophylactic clipping in 30.2%, and antibiotic therapy in 25.3% of treatments. The rates of technical and clinical success were 99.2% and 97.4%, and the rates of AE and re-admission with symptomatic recurrence were 11.2% and 16.7%, respectively. Mortality was 0.3%. Comparative subgroup analyses of 312 diverticula without prior treatment versus 72 symptomatic recurrences and incision methods/techniques showed no significant differences in outcome parameters. The use of additional devices and prophylactic measures (clipping, antibiotic therapy) were not independent predictors of technical/clinical success or AE in uni-/multivariable regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Flexible endoscopic Zenker's diverticulotomy is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment. Recurrences can be treated by flexible endoscopy with comparable results. None of the cutting methods, ancillary devices, or prophylactic measures showed superiority in effectiveness or safety.

Treatment of the Buried Bumper Syndrome​​​​​: A Retrospective Multicenter Study With Inclusion of 160 Cases.

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: The therapy of buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is difficult. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to analyze the treatment methods with focus on effectiveness and safety of endoscopic techniques. METHODS: The analysis of all therapies and a comparison of the papillotome technique (PT) and needle knife-based nonpapillotome technique (NPT) were performed. Primary endpoint was technical success in one session, secondary endpoints overall technical success, number and duration of treatment sessions, SAE, and mortality. RESULTS: The primary treatment of 160 BBS cases, diagnosed between 2003 and 2021, was NPT in 60 (37.5%), PT in 43 (26.9%), push/pull technique (PPT) in 40 (25.0%), no removal in 9 (5.6%), laparotomy in 7 (4.4%) cases, and external incision in 1 (0.6%) case. For PT and NPT rates of technical success in one session were 95.5% and 45.0% (P<0.01), rates of overall technical success 100% and 88.3% (P=0.02), and mean number and duration of treatment sessions 1.05 (±0.21) versus 1.70 (±0.91) (P<0.01) and 32.17 (±21.73) versus 98,00 (±62.28) minutes (P<0.01), respectively. No significant differences between PT and NPT were found for SAE (15.9% vs. 25.0%) and mortality (2.3% vs. 1.7%). For PPT, laparotomy and external incision rates of technical success in one session and overall technical success were 100%, rates of SAE 2.5%, 50.0%, and 0% and mortality 0%, 10.0%, and 0%. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic therapy of BBS is treatment of choice in most cases with removal of incomplete BB by PPT. In case of complete BB PT appears more effective than NPT.

Characteristics and endoscopic treatment of interventional and non-interventional iatrogenic colorectal perforations in centers with high endoscopic expertise: a retrospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic colorectal perforation is a rare event with a relevant mortality and the need for surgical therapy in around ¾ of cases. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentric cohort study iatrogenic colorectal perforations from 2004 to 2021 were analyzed. Primary outcome parameters were incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment. Comparative analysis of interventional and non-interventional perforations was performed and predictors for clinical success of endoscopic therapy were identified. RESULTS: From 103,570 colonoscopies 213 (0.2%) iatrogenic perforations were identified. 68.4% were interventional (80 during polypectomy/EMR, 54 during ESD and 11 for other reasons) and 31.6% non-interventional perforations (39 by the tip, 19 by the shaft, 7 by inversion, two by biopsy and one by distension). Incidence of 1st line endoscopic therapy was 61.0% and clinical success 81.5%. Other non-surgical therapies were conducted in 8.9% with clinical success in 94.7% of cases. In interventional perforations both incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic therapy were significantly higher compared to non-interventional perforations [71.7% vs. 38.2% (p < 0.01) resp. 86.5% vs. 61.5% (p < 0.01)]. Mortality was 2.3% and significantly lower in the group of interventional perforations (0.7% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.037). Multivariable analysis revealed perforation size < 5 mm as only independent predictor for clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment [OR 14.85 (1.57-140.69), p = 0.019]. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic therapy is treatment of choice in the majority of iatrogenic colorectal perforations. In case of interventional perforations it is highly effective but only a minority of non-interventional perforations are good candidates for endoscopic treatment.

Differences in bleeding behavior after endoscopic band ligation: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is generally accepted as the treatment of choice for bleeding from esophageal varices. It is also used for secondary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal hemorrhage. However, there is no data or guidelines concerning endoscopic control of ligation ulcers. We conducted a retrospective study of EBL procedures analyzing bleeding complications after EBL. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent EBL. We analyzed several data points, including indication for the procedure, bleeding events and the time interval between EBL and bleeding. RESULTS: 255 patients and 387 ligation sessions were included in the analysis. We observed an overall bleeding rate after EBL of 7.8%. Bleeding events after elective treatment (3.9%) were significantly lower than those after treatment for acute variceal hemorrhage (12.1%). The number of bleeding events from ligation ulcers and variceal rebleeding was 14 and 15, respectively. The bleeding rate from the ligation site in the group who underwent emergency ligation was 7.1% and 0.5% in the group who underwent elective ligation. Incidence of variceal rebleeding did not vary significantly. Seventy-five percent of all bleeding episodes after elective treatment occurred within four days after EBL. 20/22 of bleeding events after emergency ligation occurred within 11 days after treatment. Elective EBL has a lower risk of bleeding from treatment-induced ulceration than emergency ligation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent EBL for treatment of acute variceal bleeding should be kept under medical surveillance for 11 days. After elective EBL, it may be reasonable to restrict the period of surveillance to four days or even perform the procedure in an out-patient setting.