Aspirin exposure and its association with metal stent patency in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large international multicenter propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Stent dysfunction is common after ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Chronic aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid; ASA) exposure has been previously shown to potentially decrease this risk. We aim to further ascertain the protective effect of ASA and to identify other predictors of stent dysfunction. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at 9 sites in Canada and 1 in the United States. Patients with MDBO who underwent ERCP with SEMS placement between January 2014 and December 2019 were included and divided into 2 cohorts: ASA exposed (ASA-E) and ASA unexposed (ASA-U). Propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed to limit selection bias. Matched variables were age, sex, tumor stage, and type of metal stent. The primary outcome was the hazard rate of stent dysfunction. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent predictors of stent dysfunction. RESULTS: Of 1396 patients assessed, after PSM 496 patients were analyzed (248 ASA-E and 248 ASA-U). ERCP with SEMS placement was associated with a high clinical success of 82.2% in ASA-E and 81.2% in ASA-U cohorts (P = .80). One hundred eighty-four patients had stent dysfunction with a mean stent patency time of 229.9 ± 306.2 days and 245.4 ± 241.4 days in ASA-E and ASA-U groups, respectively (P = .52). On multivariable analysis, ASA exposure did not protect against stent dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], .96-1.63). An etiology of pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15-1.61) predicted stent dysfunction, whereas cancer therapy was protective (HR, .73; 95% CI, .55-.96). Chronic ASA use was not associated with an increased risk for adverse events including bleeding, post-ERCP pancreatitis, and perforation. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multicenter study using PSM, chronic exposure to ASA did not protect against stent dysfunction in MDBO. Instead, the analysis revealed that the etiology of pancreatic cancer was an independent predictor of stent dysfunction and cancer therapy was protective.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy using a novel through-the-scope exchangeable dual-balloon enteroclysis catheter: a potentially secure and scalable approach.

Video 1Clinical case of dual-balloon through-the-scope exchangeable enteroclysis catheter-assisted EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: One of the most effective diagnostic tools for pancreatic cancer is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or biopsy (EUS-FNB). Several randomized clinical trials have compared different EUS tissue sampling needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided FNA as EUS-FNB needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: A literature review with a meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guide. The databases of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar were used, including studies published between 2011-2021 comparing the diagnostic yield (diagnostic accuracy or probability of positivity, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value) of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Random effect models allowed estimation of the pooled odds ratio with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. RESULTS: Nine randomized control trials were selected out of 5802 articles identified. Among these, five studies found no statistically significant difference between the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, whereas the other four did. The meta-analysis found EUS-FNB accuracy superior to EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with a pooled odds ratio of 1.87 (IC 95%: 1.33-2.63). CONCLUSION: As compared to EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to improve diagnostic accuracy when applied to suspicious pancreatic lesions.

Association Between Time to Colonoscopy After Positive Fecal Testing and Colorectal Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy is required following a positive fecal screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC). It remains unclear to what extent time to colonoscopy is associated with CRC-related outcomes. We performed a systematic review to elucidate this relationship. METHODS: An electronic search was performed through April 2020 for studies reporting associations between time from positive fecal testing to colonoscopy and outcomes including CRC incidence (primary outcome), CRC stage at diagnosis, and/or CRC-specific mortality. Our primary objective was to quantify these relationships following positive fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Two authors independently performed screening, abstraction, and risk of bias assessments. RESULTS: From 1,612 initial studies, 8 were included in the systematic review, with 5 reporting outcomes for FIT. Although meta-analysis was not possible, consistent trends between longer time delays and worse outcomes were apparent in all studies. Colonoscopy performed beyond 9 months from positive FIT compared to within 1 month was significantly associated with a higher incidence of CRC, with adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of 1.75 and 1.48 in the two largest studies. These studies also reported significant associations between colonoscopy performed beyond 9 months and higher incidence of advanced stage CRC (stage III or IV) at diagnosis, with AORs of 2.79 and 1.55, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy for positive FIT should not be delayed beyond 9 months. Given the additional time required for urgent referrals and surgical planning for CRC, colonoscopy should ideally be performed well in advance of 9 months following a positive FIT.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: limited benefits from early colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) remains controversial. AIM: To characterise the utility of early colonoscopy (within 24 hours) in managing acute LGIB. METHODS: A systematic literature search to October 2019 identified fully published articles and abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with control groups assessing early colonoscopy in acute LGIB. The primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgery, length of stay (LOS), definite cause of bleeding and adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MD) were calculated. RESULTS: Of 1116 citations, 4 RCTs (466 patients) and 13 observational studies with elective colonoscopy (>24 hours) as control group (1 061 281 patients) were included. No differences in rebleeding were noted between early and elective colonoscopy groups among RCTs alone (OR = 1.70; 0.79; 3.64), or observational studies alone (OR = 1.20; 0.69; 2.09). No other significant between-group differences in outcomes were found when restricting the analysis to RCTs. Among observational studies only, early colonoscopy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.86; 0.75; 0.98), surgery (OR = 0.52; 0.42; 0.64), blood transfusion (OR = 0.81; 0.75; 0.87), units of blood transfusion (MD = -4.30; -6.24; -2.36) and shorter LOS (MD = -1.70; -1.70; -1.70 days). CONCLUSION: In contradistinction to observational studies, data from RCTs do not support a role for early colonoscopy in the routine management of acute LGIB with regards to the most important clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to better identify patients with high-risk LGIB who may benefit from early colonoscopy.

Comparison of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale with an Auditable Application of the US Multi-Society Task Force Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Existing bowel preparation scales (BPS) only modestly predict interval to next colonoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) recommends repeating colonoscopies within the year if the preparation does not allow detection of polyps over 5 mm. AIM: This study aims to assess reliability and validity of an auditable application of the MSTF compared with the Boston BPS (BBPS). METHODS: We compared an auditable application of MSTF guidelines termed the Montreal BPS (MBPS) with the BBPS using a total cut-off score ≥6 with each segment score ≥2 (BBPS2-6). In sensitivity analyses, we applied the MBPS using a cut-off of 3 mm rather than 5 mm and also assessed the BBPS using an adequacy threshold of total score ≥5 (BBPS5). Videos of 83 colonoscopies (eight for intra-rater agreements) were independently evaluated by nine physicians. Weighted kappas quantified intra- and inter-rater agreements. Associations between scores and clinical outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: The BBPS2-6 and 5 mm MBPS showed moderate to substantial intra-rater agreements (κ=0.44 to 0.63 and κ=0.50 to 0.53, respectively); inter-rater agreements were only fair to moderate and slight to moderate (κ=0.25 to 0.48 and κ=0.19 to 0.50, respectively). Similar results were noted using alternate thresholds of BBPS5 and 3 mm MBPS. No significant associations were found between scores and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: For all scales, intra-rater kappas were superior to inter-rater values, the latter reflecting at best moderate agreement. This modest performance may reflect the dichotomized interpretation of the scales (adequate versus inadequate), differing from previous publications assessing scores as continuous variables. Further studies are required to optimally interpret bowel preparation scales with regard to interval to next colonoscopy.

Which Patient-Related Factors Determine Optimal Bowel Preparation?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Adequate bowel cleansing before colonoscopy is a simple concept but the high rate of inadequate or incomplete bowel cleanliness and its consequences have been the subject of many studies, guidelines, and meta-analysis. The complexity resides in all the factors surrounding preparation intake such as type and regimen of bowel preparation, diets, compliance, and also patient-related factors that all influence quality of the bowel preparation. The purpose of this review is to focus specifically on patient-related factors and their challenges. Patients with lower GI bleeding are excluded from this review. RECENT FINDINGS: Patient factors that may be associated with a poor bowel preparation were searched for in the literature. With regard to patient's characteristics, higher age, male gender, and socio-economic status (lower income, Medicaid, and lower education) were all associated with higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation. Comorbidities such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in-patients, body mass index (BMI), cirrhosis, constipation, and neurological condition as well as some pharmacotherapy were also associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Studies identifying predictive patient factors as well as those studying these patients in particular showed variability in the strength of the patient factor associations. Patients taking tricyclic antidepressant, narcotics, and those with neurological conditions were identified to have a stronger association with worse bowel cleanliness. Those can be implemented with the current recommendations of split-dosing. Identifying individual factors that can impact the quality of bowel cleanliness can be challenging. Some have been well-studied in the literature such as age, in-patient status, or constipation and others such as male gender or higher BMI have required more studies to clearly conclude on any possible association. In many studies, simple recommendations like walking 30 min during the preparation, and additional instructions or support have also been added to instructions to improve motility and compliance.

The role of early colonoscopy in patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The use of early colonoscopy in the management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is controversial, with disparate evidence. We aim to formally characterize the utility of early colonoscopy (within 24 h) in managing acute LGIB. DESIGN: A systematic literature search to August 2016 identified fully published and abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing early colonoscopy in acute LGIB. Single-arm studies were also included to define incidence. Primary outcomes were overall rebleeding rates and time to rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgery, length of stay (LOS), definite cause of bleeding and adverse events (AEs). Odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated. RESULTS: Of 897 citations, 10 single-arm, 9 observational studies, and 2 RCTS were included (25,781 patients). Rebleeding was no different between patients undergoing early colonoscopy and controls (seven studies, OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.49-1.62), or RCT data only (OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.52-1.62). Early colonoscopy detected more definitive sources of bleeding (OR = 4.12, 95% CI 2.00-8.49), and was associated with shorter LOS colonoscopy (WMD = -1.52, 95% CI -2.54 to -0.50 days). No other differences were noted between early and late colonoscopy. AEs occurred in 4.0%, (95% CI 2.9%; 5.4%) of early colonoscopies. Included studies were of low quality, with significant heterogeneity for some outcomes. CONCLUSION: Early colonoscopy in acute LGIB does not decrease rebleeding, mortality or need for surgery, but is associated with increased detection of definitive sources of bleeding, shorter LOS, with low complication incidence. However, the quality of evidence is low, highlighting the need for additional high-level studies.

Implementation of a checklist before colonoscopy: a quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Checklists can prevent errors and have a positive impact on patient morbidity and mortality in different surgical settings, and possibly also in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The aims of this study were to reinforce commitment in safety culture and better communication among team members in endoscopy, and to prove the feasibility of successful checklist adoption before colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study involved a pre - post quality improvement intervention involving all consecutive patients undergoing a colonoscopy at a single academic endoscopy unit. The first part of the study was a retrospective audit, carried out over a 3-month period (July to September 2016). A checklist developed through a formal validation process was implemented during the intervention period (October to December 2016). Primary outcomes were changes in patient and team satisfaction after the quality improvement intervention, using validated 5-point scale questionnaires. Secondary outcomes included successful procedure completion rates and safety outcomes. RESULTS: During the baseline and comparative intervention period, 1317 and 1141 colonoscopies, respectively, were performed. Overall, checklists were fully completed by nurses and physicians for 791 patients (69.3 %). Mean overall patient satisfaction was high at baseline and did not differ following the quality improvement intervention (4.66 vs. 4.63; P  = 0.5). Perception of team communication and teamwork was improved after checklist implementation. Comparative analyses of per-procedure and safety outcomes did not differ between the pre- and post-checklist implementation. CONCLUSION: Adoption of an endoscopy checklist before colonoscopy is feasible, and significantly increases perception of team communication and teamwork. Additional studies are needed to assess the generalizability of these results to complex endoscopic procedures and to characterize any improvement in patient safety outcomes.

Do adjuvants add to the efficacy and tolerance of bowel preparations? A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Recommendations on adjuvant use with bowel preparations remain disparate. We performed a meta-analysis determining the clinical impact of adding an adjuvant to polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate (PICO), or oral sulfate solutions (OSS)-based regimens. METHODS: Systematic searches were made of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge for randomized trials from January 1980 to April 2016 that assessed preparations with or without adjuvants, given in split and non-split dosing, and PEG high- (> 3 L) or low-dose (≤ 2 L) regimens. Bowel cleansing efficacy was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included patient willingness to repeat the procedure, and polyp and adenoma detection rates. RESULTS: Of 3093 citations, 77 trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, addition of an adjuvant compared with no adjuvant, irrespective of the type of preparation and mode of administration, yielded improvements in bowel cleanliness (odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.01 - 1.51]) without greater willingness to repeat (OR 1.40 [0.91 - 2.15]). Adjuvants combined with high-dose PEG significantly improved colon cleansing (OR 1.96 [1.32 - 2.94]). The odds for achieving adequate preparation with low-dose PEG with an adjuvant were not different to high-dose PEG alone (OR 0.95 [0.73 - 1.22]), but yielded improved tolerance (OR 3.22 [1.85 - 5.55]). However, split high-dose PEG yielded superior cleanliness to low-dose PEG with adjuvants (OR 2.53 [1.25 - 5.13]). No differences were noted for OSS and PICO comparisons, or for any products regarding polyp or adenoma detection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Critical heterogeneity precludes firm conclusion on the impact of adjuvants with existing bowel preparations. Additional research is required to better characterize the methods of administration and resulting roles of adjuvants in an era of split-dosing.

Validating bowel preparation scales.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Few scales assessing bowel preparation quality have been validated, and direct between-scale comparisons remain scarce. The aim of the study was to compare inter- and intra-rater reliability, predictive abilities for clinical outcomes, and ease of use for each scale. METHODS: Colonoscopy video recordings highlighting five colonic segments after washing were viewed independently by three physicians, and cleanliness was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), the Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale (CBPS), and the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) in randomized order. Kappa or intraclass correlations quantified intra- and inter-rater reliability. Ease of use was evaluated (1 - 10 scale, 1 = easy), as were associations between scores, adenoma detection, and adequacy of preparation to exclude lesions ≥ 5 mm. RESULTS: Among 83 colonoscopy videos, indications included screening or surveillance in 72.3 %. Mean (±â€ŠSD) scores of the respective three raters were 5.17 ±â€Š1.57, 6.49 ±â€Š1.48, and 5.12 ±â€Š1.21 for BBPS, and 23.73 ±â€Š6.01, 28.39 ±â€Š5.47, and 24.75 ±â€Š5.83 for CBPS, while successful HCS scores (grade A or B) were given for 76 %, 89 %, and 63 % of examinations. Intra-rater reliability ranges were 0.88 - 1.00, 0.83 - 1.00, and 0.62 - 1.00 for BBPS, CBPS, and HCS, respectively. Similarly, inter-rater reliability ranges were 0.50 - 0.79, 0.64 - 0.83, and 0.28 - 0.52, respectively. Sources of disagreement included varying rater strictness, which was possibly most marked for preparations rated as intermediate. Overall, associations between preparation scores and adenoma detection lacked statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The BBPS and CBPS showed the best inter- and intra-rater reliability, and the BBPS was considered the easiest to use. Further studies are needed to determine an optimal adequacy threshold for these scales, with the goal of predicting clinical outcomes and determining the appropriate interval to the next colonoscopy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of colon cleansing preparations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

AIM: To performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine any possible differences in terms of effectiveness, safety and tolerability between existing colon-cleansing products in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: Systematic searches were performed (January 1980-September 2016) using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge for randomized trials assessing preparations with or without adjuvants, given in split and non-split dosing, and in high (> 3 L) or low-volume (2 L or less) regimens. Bowel cleansing quality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included patient willingness-to-repeat the procedure and side effects/complications. RESULTS: Out of 439 citations, 4 trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria (n = 449 patients). One trial assessed the impact of adding simethicone to polyethylene glycol (PEG) 4 L with no effect on bowel cleansing quality, but a better tolerance. Another trial compared senna to castor oil, again without any differences in term of bowel cleansing. Two trials compared the efficacy of PEG high-volume vs PEG low-volume associated to an adjuvant in split-dose regimens: PEG low-dose efficacy was not different to PEG high-dose; OR = 0.84 (0.37-1.92). A higher proportion of patients were willing to repeat low-volume preparations vs high-volume; OR = 5.11 (1.31-20.0). CONCLUSION: In inflammatory bowel disease population, PEG low-volume regimen seems not inferior to PEG high-volume to clean the colon, and yields improved willingness-to-repeat. Further additional research is urgently required to compare contemporary products in this population.

Split-Dose Preparations Are Superior to Day-Before Bowel Cleansing Regimens: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are different regimens of preparing the colon for colonoscopy, including polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate, or oral sulfate solutions. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of split-dose vs other colon preparation regimens, the optimal products for use, and the most effective preparation volumes. METHODS: We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge databases, from January 1980 to March 2014, for published results from randomized trials that assessed split-dose regimens vs day-before colonoscopy preparation. We excluded studies that included pediatric or hospitalized patients, or patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The primary outcome was efficacy of bowel cleansing. Secondary outcomes included side effects or complications, outcomes of procedures, patients' willingness to repeat the procedure, and the amount of time required for patients to resume daily activities. RESULTS: We identified 47 trials that fulfilled our inclusion criteria (n = 13,487 patients). Split-dose preparations provided significantly better colon cleansing than day-before preparations (odds ratio [OR], 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-3.39), as well as day-before preparations with PEG (OR, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-4.63), sodium phosphate (OR, 9.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-41.11), or picosulfate (OR, 3.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-6.45). PEG split-dose preparations of 3 L or more yielded greater bowel cleanliness than lower-volume split-dose regimens (OR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.46), but only in intention-to-treat analysis. A higher proportion of patients were willing to repeat split-dose vs day-before cleansing (OR, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.46), and low-volume split-dose preparations vs high-volume split-dose preparation (OR, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.10). There were no differences between preparations in other secondary outcome measures. However, there was variation among studies in definitions and main and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on meta-analysis, split-dose regimens increase the quality of colon cleansing and are preferred by patients compared with day-before preparations. Additional research is required to evaluate oral sulfate solution-based and PEG low-volume regimens further.

A microRNA-based test improves endoscopic ultrasound-guided cytologic diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in combination with cytopathology is the optimal method for diagnosis and staging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and other pancreatic lesions. Its clinical utility, however, can be limited by high rates of indeterminate or false-negative results. We aimed to develop and validate a microRNA (miRNA)-based test to improve preoperative detection of PDAC. METHODS: Levels of miRNAs were analyzed in a centralized clinical laboratory by relative quantitative polymerase chain reaction in 95 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens and 228 samples collected by EUS-FNA during routine evaluations of patients with solid pancreatic masses at 4 institutions in the United States, 1 in Canada, and 1 in Poland. RESULTS: We developed a 5-miRNA expression classifier, consisting of MIR24, MIR130B, MIR135B, MIR148A, and MIR196, that could identify PDAC in well-characterized, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens. Detection of PDAC in EUS-FNA samples increased from 78.8% by cytology analysis alone (95% confidence interval, 72.2%-84.5%) to 90.8% when combined with miRNA analysis (95% confidence interval, 85.6%-94.5%). The miRNA classifier correctly identified 22 additional true PDAC cases among 39 samples initially classified as benign, indeterminate, or nondiagnostic by cytology. Cytology and miRNA test results each were associated significantly with PDAC (P < .001), with positive predictive values greater than 99% (95% confidence interval, 96%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a 5-miRNA classifier that can accurately predict which preoperative pancreatic EUS-FNA specimens contain PDAC. This test might aid in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer by reducing the number of FNAs without a definitive adenocarcinoma diagnosis, thereby reducing the number of repeat EUS-FNA procedures.

Early migration of fully covered double-layered metallic stents for post-gastric bypass anastomotic strictures.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is well recognized for its efficiency in morbidly obese patients. Anastomotic strictures present in 5-15% of cases and have a significant impact on the patient's quality of life. Endoscopic balloon dilation is the recommended treatment but management of refractory cases is challenging. PRESENTATION OF CASE: Two patients with anastomotic stenoses refractory to dilations were treated with fully covered esophageal stents. Both cases presented early stent migration. The first patient finally underwent surgical revision of the anastomosis. For the second patient, a double-layered stent was installed after the first incident. After the migration of this second stent, three sessions of intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide were performed. Both patients were free of obstructive symptoms at a follow-up of 9 months. DISCUSSION: Treatment of post-gastric bypass strictures with stents is based on years of successful experience with endoscopic stenting of malignant esophageal strictures, gastric outlet obstruction in addition to anastomotic stenoses after esophageal cancer surgery. The actual prosthesis are however inadequate for the particularities of the LRYGB anastomosis with a high migration rate. Intralesional corticosteroid injection therapy has been reported to be beneficial in the management of refractory benign esophageal strictures and seems to have prevented recurrence of the stenosis in this post-LRYGB. CONCLUSION: Stents are aimed at preventing a complex surgical reintervention but are not yet specifically designed for that indication. Local infiltration of corticosteroids at the time of dilation may prevent recurrence of the anastomotic stricture.

Can papillary carcinomas be treated by endoscopic ampullectomy?

BACKGROUND: The utility of endoscopic ampullectomy versus surgical ampullectomy remains a topic of debate, particularly for the treatment of malignant tumors. The goal of this study was to prospectively establish the outcomes of endoscopic ampullectomy, with focus on carcinoma. METHODS: From February 2002 to December 2008, 61 patients underwent endoscopic ampullectomy. The ampulloma was discovered fortuitously in the majority of cases (43 patients, 70%). All patients had had an echoendoscopy revealing a T1N0 lesion without invasion of the orifice. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (70%) underwent a monobloc resection. Histological analysis revealed a low-grade dysplastic adenoma in 21 patients (35%), a high-grade dysplastic adenoma in 11 patients (18%), no dysplasia in 16 patients (26%), an adenocarcinoma in 10 patients (16%), and a well-differentiated endocrine carcinoma in 3 patients (5%). Among the ten patients with adenocarcinoma, four with adenocarcinoma of poor prognosis were treated by pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with R0 resection, of whom one patient had no more lesion. Two intramucosal adenocarcinomas were cured by endoscopic ampullectomy without any recurrence. Four patients received palliative care after endoscopic ampullectomy due to cephalic pancreatico-duodenectomy contraindication. For the three patients with well-differentiated endocrine carcinomas, one was treated by PD with R0 resection and two were treated solely by endoscopic ampullectomy, without recurrence. Eleven patients (18%) presented with complications. The complication rate was 30.5% for carcinomas versus 14.5% for benign tumors (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ampullectomy allows for the oncologic resection of well-differentiated intramucosal carcinomas with negative margins. The risk of complications is greater for papillary carcinomas.

Large endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors exceeding 4 cm.

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and the outcome of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal tumors exceeding 4 cm (LCRT) undergoing piecemeal resection. METHODS: From January 2005 to April 2008, 146 digestive tumors larger than 2 cm were removed with the EMR technique in our department. Of these, 34 tumors were larger than 4 cm and piecemeal resection was carried out on 26 colorectal tumors. The mean age of the patients was 71 years. The mean follow-up duration was 12 mo. RESULTS: LCRTs were located in the rectum, left colon, transverse colon and right colon in 58%, 15%, 4% and 23% of cases, respectively. All were sessile tumors larger than 4 cm with a mean size of 4.9 cm (4-10 cm). According to the Paris classification, 34% of the tumors were type Is, 58% type IIa, 4% type IIb and 4% type IIc. Pathological examination showed tubulous adenoma in 31%, tubulo-villous adenoma in 27%, villous adenoma in 42%, high-grade dysplasia in 38%, in situ carcinoma in 19% of the cases and mucosal carcinoma (m2) in 8% of the cases. The two cases (7.7%) of procedural bleeding that occurred were managed endoscopically and one small perforation was treated with clips. During follow-up, recurrence of the tumor occurred in three patients (12%), three of whom received endoscopic treatment. CONCLUSION: EMR for tumors larger than 4 cm is a safe and effective procedure that could compete with endoscopic submucosal dissection, despite providing incomplete histological assessment.