An internal magnet traction device reduces procedure time for endoscopic submucosal dissection by expert and non-expert endoscopists: ex vivo study in a porcine colorectal model (with video).

BACKGROUND: Efficacy of an internal magnet traction device (MTD) for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) by an expert endoscopist has been reported. We hypothesized that use of the MTD would enhance the performance of colorectal ESD in a non-expert endoscopist in ESD compared to the conventional technique. Primary aim of this study was to compare procedure times between conventional ESD (C-ESD) and MTD-assisted ESD (MTD-ESD) by expert and non-expert endoscopists in ESD. Secondary aims included rate of en bloc resection, iatrogenic injury, visualization score of the submucosal layer, and endoscopist satisfaction score. METHODS: A total of 56 lesions were created in an ex vivo porcine colorectum. Two endoscopists completed C-ESD (n = 28) and MTD-ESD (n = 28). Lesions measured 3 cm in diameter and were located on either the anterior or posterior colorectal wall. The MTD consisted of a small neodymium magnet and nylon monofilament attached to a through-the-scope clip. The first MTD was deployed on the opposing colorectal wall of the target lesion and a second MTD was then deployed directly onto the distal margin of the lesion. RESULTS: Total procedure time for MTD-ESD was significantly shorter than C-ESD for both expert (median: 15.8 vs. 19.3 min, p < 0.05) and non-expert (median: 21.3 vs. 33.9 min, p < 0.001) endoscopists. All lesions were resected en bloc. There was no iatrogenic muscularis propria injury in the MTD-ESD group. For both the expert and non-expert, scores for MTD-ESD were significantly higher for submucosal layer visualization (p < 0.05) and endoscopist satisfaction (p < 0.001) compared to C-ESD. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the MTD significantly reduced procedure time for both expert and non-expert endoscopists performing ESD. Improving the efficiency, safety, and satisfaction of ESD with such a device particularly for non-expert endoscopists is appealing and could potentially minimize the complexity and duration of the procedure allowing for more widespread use of the technique.

The evolution of treatment and complications of esophageal food impaction.

Background: Esophageal food impaction is relatively common and increasing over time. Treatment ranges from medications to invasive endoscopic therapies. The endoscopic push technique has been advised against in favor of endoscopic retrieval for safety concerns. We sought to assess use patterns and safety of treatments for food impaction in a population-based retrospective review. Methods: A database of recorded esophageal food impactions in Olmsted County, MN, USA, from 1975-2011 was reviewed for patient demographics, treatment, and complications. Results: A total of 645 impactions occurred, with increasing incidence over time, peaking at 23.2 per year (2000-2004). Medications (almost exclusively glucagon) were successful in relieving impactions 34.5% of the time when trialed. Urgent endoscopy was common (74.0%), as was the need for endoscopic therapy (67.1%). Endoscopic therapy increased over time, with the endoscopic push technique becoming most common. Esophageal complications (deep mucosal injury or perforation) increased over time but remained rare (peak 11%). There was no difference in complications between push and retrieval techniques. Conclusions: The endoscopic push technique is safe in comparison to endoscopic retrieval in esophageal food impactions. While complications surrounding impaction have increased, they remain rare. Medication trials are reasonable, as long as they do not delay endoscopy, and may prevent the need for emergent endoscopy in one-third of cases.

Comparison of mucosal impedance measurements throughout the esophagus and mucosal eosinophil counts in endoscopic biopsy specimens in eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Assessing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) activity from limited esophageal mucosal biopsy samples has been questioned. Here our aim was to compare mucosal impedance (MI) throughout the esophagus and eosinophil counts in endoscopic biopsy samples in EoE. METHODS: We compared 20-site MI using a balloon catheter in the esophagus and eosinophils per high-power field (eos/HPF) in esophageal mucosal biopsy samples. Data are summarized as median (interquartile range) comparing control subjects and EoE using Mann-Whitney rank sum test and between endoscopic reference score and MI (minimal and average) using rank Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Ten adult control patients (ages 38-70) and 23 EoE patients (ages 21-80, 18 active) were studied. The mean (range) pan-esophageal MI in control subjects was significantly higher (6435 ohms [4546-7301]) compared with EoE patients (2004 ohms [1437-2546], P < .001). In control patients 172 of 180 (95.6%) individual impedance measurements (18 per patient) were normal when compared with 126 of 432 (29.2%) measurements in EoE. No EoE patient had uniformly normal MI. MI varied widely, with 19 of 23 patients having values above and below 2300 ohms (normal) regardless of EoE activity. Correlation of maximim eos/HPF with minimum and average MI per patient was r = -.243, P = .072 and r = -.358, P = .086, respectively. Of 5 patients with inactive EoE, 3 had >50% abnormal MI segments. Correlation coefficients of the endoscopic reference score with minimum and average MI were r = -.154, P = .47 and r = -.27, P = .20, respectively. The procedure was <5 minutes without adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: MI is lower in the esophagus of EoE patients compared with control subjects with poor correlation between peak esophageal eosinophil counts, EoE activity, and MI. Segmental esophageal MI provides a unique marker of esophageal dysfunction in EoE. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02995395.).