Comparison of the usefulness of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation with endoscopic sphincterotomy for large and multiple common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is currently recognized as the primary endoscopic treatment for common bile duct stones. However, it is difficult to remove multiple (≥ 3) or large (≥ 15 mm) common bile duct stones with EST alone. Recently, EST plus endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) was reported to be an effective treatment for such bile duct stones. We compared the results of EST and EST + EPLBD for multiple (≥ 3) or large (≥ 15 mm) stones that were difficult to treat using EST alone. We also compared the complication rates between the techniques. METHODS: Seventy patients with large (largest diameter, ≥ 15 mm) or ≥ 3 common bile duct stones treated in our department between April 2010 and March 2013 underwent EST + EPLBD (n = 34) or EST alone (n = 36). We compared final successful stone removal rates, rates of successful stone removal in the first session, procedure times, status of concurrent mechanical lithotripsy (ML), and complications between the EST + EPLBD and EST groups. RESULTS: The rates of final successful stone removal were similar between the two groups (EST + EPLBD: 100 % vs. EST: 89 %; p = 0.115). The rate of successful stone removal in the first session was significantly higher in the EST + EPLBD group (EST + EPLBD: 88 % vs. EST: 56 %; p = 0.03). Moreover, the procedure time was significantly shorter (EST + EPLBD: 42 min vs. EST: 67 min; p = 0.011) and the rate of ML use was significantly lower in the EST + EPLBD group (EST + EPLBD: 50 % vs. EST: 94 %; p < 0.001). Complications like pancreatitis and bleeding occurred in three patients in the EST + EPLBD group and in 10 patients in the EST group, but the differences were not statistically significant (EST + EPLBD: 9 % vs. EST: 25 %; p = 0.112). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that EST + EPLBD is an effective therapy for patients with difficult-to-treat multiple or large common bile duct stones, because it requires fewer sessions and shorter operative times than EST alone.

A second-look endoscopy may not reduce the bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric epithelial neoplasm.

BACKGROUND: Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has gradually come to be recommended as the optimal treatment for early gastric cancer; however, one of the primary issues is postoperative bleeding. Although second-look endoscopy is conventionally performed to reduce the risk of postoperative bleeding, its benefit has not yet been clearly elucidated. The objective of this study was to elucidate the benefit of second-look endoscopy. METHODS: A total of 459 lesions in patients were underwent gastric ESD from May 2004 to April 2013 at our hospital were included in the analysis. The patients were divided into those who had bleeding within 24 hours after ESD (immediate bleeding) and those in whom bleeding occurred 24 hours or more after the procedure (delayed bleeding); the underlying disease, age, lesion site, diameter of the resected specimen, and lesion diameter were analyzed to identify the risk factors for postoperative bleeding after ESD. RESULTS: Post-ESD immediate or delayed bleeding occurred in 23 of the 459 cases (5.0%). Second-look endoscopy was performed in 210 of 447 cases (47.0%) excluding 12 cases with immediate bleeding; in the remaining 237 of the 447 cases (53.0%), it was not performed. Post-ESD delayed bleeding occurred in 6 of the 210 cases (2.9%) and 5 of the 237 cases (2.1%), with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Overall, the following factors were identified as the risk factors for postoperative bleeding: young age (P = 0.005), lesions in the L segment (P = 0.042), and large size of the resected specimen (P = 0.005). The risk factors identified in the immediate bleeding group were lesions in the L segment (P = 0.032), large size of the resected specimen (P < 0.001), and large tumor size (P = 0.011), and those in the delayed bleeding group were young age (P = 0.013) and concomitant renal disease (P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that second-look endoscopy after gastric ESD may not be useful for preventing postoperative bleeding.

Gastric Adenocarcinoma of the Fundic Gland Type after Endoscopic Therapy for Metachronous Gastric Cancer.

A 78-year-old man underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric adenocarcinoma twice in 2009 and 2014. Between the procedures, he successfully completed Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy. In May 2015, upper endoscopy screening showed two elevated lesions on the gastric fundus, and en bloc resection by ESD was performed. We histopathologically diagnosed the patient to have gastric adenocarcinoma of the fundic gland type. In this case, the two lesions of gastric adenocarcinoma of the fundic gland type multifocally developed after ESD for metachronous gastric tubular adenocarcinoma. Furthermore, they appeared in the gastric fundus, where atrophy had been improved due to eradication therapy.

Clinical effectiveness of the pocket-creation method for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically advanced procedure for colorectal tumors. Hayashi et al. invented the "pocket-creation method (PCM)," and reported that Is-type lesions with fibrosis could be efficaciously and safely resected. However, only case studies have been published, and there are no previous reports on the usefulness of PCM in colorectal ESD for all lesions, as compared with the conventional method. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCM in colorectal ESD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-six colorectal tumors were treated: 47 using the PCM and the other 49, considered the control group, using the conventional method. Therapeutic effectiveness and safety were retrospectively assessed. RESULTS: The comparison between the PCM and control groups revealed higher rates of en bloc resection (100 % vs. 88 %, P  = 0.015) and curative endoscopic resection (100 % vs. 84 %, P  = 0.0030) with PCM. There was no significant difference in perforation as an adverse event (AE) between the two groups, though perforation was observed in only 6 % of the control group and none of the PCM group. Compared with the control group, the PCM group had lower incidences of perforation and post-ESD coagulation syndrome, and both AEs were associated with excessive thermal denaturation of the muscle layer (2 % vs. 16 %, P  = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of ESD with PCM for colorectal tumors. Although there is a possible learning curve, PCM enables the endoscopist to safely perform ESD in most cases without encountering the difficulties associated with conventional ESD.

Clinical importance of colonoscopy in patients with gastric neoplasm undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection.

AIM: To evaluate the usefulness of total colonoscopy (TCS) for patients undergoing gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and to assess risk factors for colorectal neoplasms. METHODS: Of the 263 patients who underwent ESD at our department between May 2010 and December 2013, 172 patients undergoing TCS during a one-year period before and after ESD were targeted. After excluding patients with a history of surgery or endoscopic therapy for colorectal neoplasms, 158 patients were analyzed. Of the 868 asymptomatic patients who underwent TCS during the same period because of positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results, 158 patients with no history of either surgery or endoscopic therapy for colorectal neoplasms who were matched for age and sex served as the control group for comparison. RESULTS: TCS revealed adenoma less than 10 mm in 53 patients (33.6%), advanced adenoma in 17 (10.8%), early colorectal cancer in 5 (3.2%), and advanced colorectal cancer in 4 (2.5%). When the presence or absence of adenoma less than 10 mm, advanced adenoma, and colorectal cancer and the number of adenomas were compared between patients undergoing ESD and FIT-positive patients, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the parameters assessed. The patients undergoing ESD appeared to have the same risk of colorectal neoplasms as the FIT-positive patients. Colorectal neoplasms were clearly more common in men than in women (P = 0.031). Advanced adenoma and cancer were significantly more frequent in patients with at least two of the following conditions: hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus (P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing gastric ESD, TCS appears to be important for detecting synchronous double neoplasms. Advanced adenoma and cancer were more common in patients with at least two of the following conditions: hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. Caution is therefore especially warranted in patients with these risk factors.