Safety and efficacy of surgical and endoscopic resection in the treatment of duodenal subepithelial lesions.

BACKGROUND: Duodenal subepithelial lesions (D-SELs) are rare and their resection is challenging. Unfortunately, data on surgical and endoscopic resection of D-SELs are scarce. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of surgical resection and endoscopic resection (ER) for D-SELs. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of patients with non-ampullary D-SELs who underwent ER or surgery and compared the outcomes between ER and surgery with no/low-risk SELs over 15 mm from March 2010 to August 2020. Clinicopathologic findings, procedure-related parameters, and follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients (108 lesions) were enrolled; 52 patients (53 lesions) received ER and 55 patients (55 lesions) received surgery. In ER group, en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate were 94 and 89%, respectively. Major adverse events rate was 6%. One (2%) patient experienced local recurrence. In surgery group, R0 resection was achieved in all cases. Major adverse events rate was 20%. Recurrence rate and distant metastases rate were 4 and 8%, respectively. One (2%) patient died from septicemia during follow-up. Thirty-three patients in each group were enrolled in the comparison. There were no significant differences in age, sex, lesion size and location (P > 0.05). More histologically GISTs and muscularis propria-originated lesions were treated by surgery (P < 0.05). ER was significantly associated with a shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, lower cost, less estimated blood loss, and lower major adverse events rate compared to the surgery group (P < 0.05). However, R0 resection rate, mortality, recurrence rate, and metastases rate were not significant different (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ER is an effective and safe treatment modality for selected patients with non-ampullary D-SELs by expert endoscopists. Surgery is a radical method for D-SELs that should be reserved for D-SELs not amenable to ER.

Endoscopic Removal of Sharp-Pointed Foreign Bodies with Both Sides Embedded into the Duodenal Wall in Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Sharp-pointed FBs with both sides embedded in the duodenal wall are rare. Compared with smooth edged FBs, sharp objects are more likely to be associated with significant adverse events, when penetrating the wall of the digestive tract. The clinical features of patients who experienced sharp-pointed FBs embedded in both sides of the duodenum were retrospectively analyzed, as were the efficacy and safety of endoscopic removal of these FBs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 21 adults with both sides of sharp-pointed FBs embedded into the duodenal wall who were admitted to the Second Xiangya Hospital in China between January 1, 1996, and May 31, 2021. Data associated with the endoscopic removal of these FBs were collected from the electronic medical record system (EMRS) of the hospital. RESULTS: The incidence rate of duodenal total FBs and FBs embedded in both sides was 8.87% and 1.03%, respectively. The success rate of endoscopic treatment was 100.00% in 124 patients without embedded duodenal FBs and 97.14% in 35 patients with one side embedded duodenal FBs. Of the 21 patients with FBs embedded in both sides of the duodenal wall, endoscopic removal was successful in 85.71% of patients, whereas 14.29% required surgery. FBs removed from these patients included toothpicks in 12; needles in 3; jujube pits in 2; and a chopstick, dentures, fish bones, and chicken bones in one each. Most of these 21 FBs were located in the bulb and descending duodenum, followed by the third part of duodenum. CONCLUSION: Sharp-edged FBs with both sides embedded in the duodenal wall are rare. Endoscopic removal may be considered as a feasible, safe, and effective method of removing sharp-pointed FBs with both sides embedded in the duodenal wall. And if endoscopic removal is unsuccessful, surgical management can be a secondary option.

Factors predicting technical difficulties during endoscopic submucosal excavation for gastric submucosal tumor.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) has been established as an effective method for removal of gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). The aim of the present study was to explore risk factors for technical difficulties in ESE. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we collected clinical data from patients who underwent ESE for gastric SMTs. Difficult ESE was defined as a procedure time ≥90 minutes, piecemeal resection, and/or occurrence of major adverse events. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the risk factors for a difficult ESE. RESULTS: ESE was successfully performed in 96.5% (195/202) of patients from April 2011 to December 2019. The average tumor size was 17.41 mm, and en bloc resection was achieved in 97.4% of patients (190/195). Five patients (2.56%, 5/195) had complications, including two with delayed bleeding, two with fever, and one with chest pain accompanying ST-T changes in an electrocardiogram. Twenty-four patients (11.88%, 24/202) had a difficult ESE. Logistic analysis showed that outgrowth behavior and an inexperienced surgeon were risk factors for a difficult ESE. CONCLUSION: ESE may be safe and effective to treat patients with gastric SMTs. Outgrowth behavior and an inexperienced surgeon were risk factors for a difficult ESE.

Factors that predict the technical difficulty during endoscopic full-thickness resection of a gastric submucosal tumor

BACKGROUND AND AIM: endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is widely accepted for the treatment of gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). However, technical difficulties sometimes occur. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of EFTR for gastric SMTs and to explore risk factors for technical difficulty. METHODS: the clinical data of patients who received EFTR for gastric SMTs was retrospectively collected from April 2011 to September 2019. Efficacy was defined as an en bloc resection. Difficult EFTR was defined as a procedure time ≥ 120 minutes and/or the occurrence of major adverse events, such as major bleeding, abdominal pain or peritonitis. Finally, risk factors for technical difficulty of EFTR such as gender, age, tumor location, size, symptomatic, regular, outgrowth, operator experience and pathology were analyzed in a univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: one hundred SMTs were removed by EFTR. The average surgery time was 75.73 ± 45.9 (range: 20-250) minutes and the average tumor size was 16.23 ± 7.73 (range: 6-40) mm. With regard to efficacy, en bloc resection was achieved in 98 cases (98 %). A total of ten patients (9.9 %) had complications, namely two intra-operative bleeding, one delayed bleeding and seven patients had abdominal pain (overt peritonitis). EFTR was ceased in one patient due to massive intra-operative bleeding and conversion to laparoscopic surgery was necessary. One patient required laparoscopic surgery due to delayed bleeding, and other complications were resolved with a conservative treatment. A total of 18 cases (17.8 %) encountered a difficult EFTR: tumor size ≥ 3 cm (p = 0.008) and location at the gastric corpus (p = 0.007) were risk factors for a difficult EFTR according to the logistic analysis. CONCLUSION: EFTR is safe and effective for the treatment of gastric SMTs. Tumor size of ≥ 3 cm and location at the gastric corpus are risk factors for a difficult EFTR

No disponible

Factors that predict the technical difficulty during endoscopic full-thickness resection of a gastric submucosal tumor.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is widely accepted for the treatment of gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). However, technical difficulties sometimes occur. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of EFTR for gastric SMTs and to explore risk factors for technical difficulty. METHODS: the clinical data of patients who received EFTR for gastric SMTs was retrospectively collected from April 2011 to September 2019. Efficacy was defined as an en bloc resection. Difficult EFTR was defined as a procedure time ≥ 120 minutes and/or the occurrence of major adverse events, such as major bleeding, abdominal pain or peritonitis. Finally, risk factors for technical difficulty of EFTR such as gender, age, tumor location, size, symptomatic, regular, outgrowth, operator experience and pathology were analyzed in a univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: one hundred SMTs were removed by EFTR. The average surgery time was 75.73 ± 45.9 (range: 20-250) minutes and the average tumor size was 16.23 ± 7.73 (range: 6-40) mm. With regard to efficacy, en bloc resection was achieved in 98 cases (98 %). A total of ten patients (9.9 %) had complications, namely two intra-operative bleeding, one delayed bleeding and seven patients had abdominal pain (overt peritonitis). EFTR was ceased in one patient due to massive intra-operative bleeding and conversion to laparoscopic surgery was necessary. One patient required laparoscopic surgery due to delayed bleeding, and other complications were resolved with a conservative treatment. A total of 18 cases (17.8 %) encountered a difficult EFTR: tumor size ≥ 3 cm (p = 0.008) and location at the gastric corpus (p = 0.007) were risk factors for a difficult EFTR according to the logistic analysis. CONCLUSION: EFTR is safe and effective for the treatment of gastric SMTs. Tumor size of ≥ 3 cm and location at the gastric corpus are risk factors for a difficult EFTR.

Current status of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions.

INTRODUCTION: With the widespread application of screening endoscopy and development of endoscopy-related instruments, more and more gastrointestinal cancers are detected in an early stage. Endoscopic resection is a preferred method for selected patients with superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard method for its ability to perform en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. ESD can be performed in a conventional or tunneling way, and the latter is termed endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD). AREA COVERED: In the present review, we provided a comprehensive review on ESTD for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions. We mainly focus on technical details, safety and efficacy of ESTD for esophageal, gastric and colorectal lesions. The present review is expected to provide tips for operators who are going to perform ESTD. EXPERT OPINION: The best indication of ESTD is large superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (circumferential extent > 1/3 and longitudinal extent > 3 cm). Although ESTD has shown promising primary results for superficial gastric and colorectal neoplastic lesions, it is technically difficult and should be attempted only in experienced hands. Post-treatment stricture is a major concern, and preventive measures are recommended for patients with high risk of post-ESTD stricture.

Endoscopic incision for treatment of benign gastrointestinal strictures.

INTRODUCTION: Benign gastrointestinal strictures are common, and can be congenital or acquired (anastomotic, corrosive, induced by Crohn's disease or endoscopic treatments, etc.). Patients usually present with stricture-related symptoms such as vomiting, dysphagia, dyschezia, abdominal pain, which impair their quality of life. Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) is the first-line treatment for most of the benign strictures; however, long-term efficacy is suboptimal, and the recurrence rate can be up to 38%. Endoscopic incision (EI) was firstly reported for treatment of congenital membranous stricture, and then applied to other benign gastrointestinal strictures. AREA COVERED: In the present review, we provided a comprehensive review of EI for the treatment of benign gastrointestinal strictures, mainly focus on the technical details, indication, safety, and efficacy of EI. The present review is expected to provide tips for operators who are going to perform EI. EXPERT OPINION: EI can serve as an alternative method for treatment of gastrointestinal strictures, the best indications are congenital membranous stricture and short-segmental (<1 cm) anastomotic strictures refractory to EBD. EI may also be attempted for strictures induced by other reasons. Combination with other endoscopic methods such as EBD, local steroid injection, stent placement, may improve the efficacy of EI.