Using a double-channel gastroscope reduces procedural time in performing gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Complications are important determining factors for safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). ESD of large lesions is associated with increased procedural time. This study investigated whether double-channel gastroscope could be used to reduce procedural time in gastric antrum ESD. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 46 patients with one gastric antrum lesion resected by ESD was conducted between January 2013 and December 2015. The diameter of a lesion was from 2cm to 4cm in 46 patients. EUS before ESD was used to evaluate the submucosal vascular structure and the location of lesion in gastric wall. Forty six lesions had ESD with either the ordinary gastroscope (OS group) (n=24) or the double-channel gastroscope (DC group) (n=22). RESULTS: The mean procedural time was significantly lower in the DC group than in the OS group (49.1 minutes vs. 20.5 minutes, p=0.04). There were no significant differences in submucosal injection frequency, specimen size, en bloc resection rate and perforation rate between the two endoscopic groups. There was no recurrence in any case during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that ESD utilizing double-channel gastroscope may provide a better platform for quicker ESD with equal safety.

Clinical evaluation of double-channel gastroscope for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy.

AIM: To evaluate the use of a double-channel gastroscope in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and interventions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2013, 18 patients with Billroth II gastrectomy were enrolled in this study. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was performed using a straight forward gastroscope with double working channel (4.2-mm diameter, 2.8-mm diameter). RESULTS: The success rate of selective cannulation and accomplishment of planned procedures was 15 out of 18 patients (83.3%), and no serious complications were encountered. CONCLUSIONS: The double-channel gastroscope appears to be useful in performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy.

Use of a double-channel gastroscope reduces procedural time in large left-sided colonic endoscopic mucosal resections.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal lesions is associated with increased procedural time. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of double-channel gastroscope (DCG) use on the procedural time of EMRs in the rectosigmoid area. METHODS: All EMRs for sessile or flat rectosigmoid lesions ≥2 cm performed between July 2011 and September 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: There were 55 lesions ≥2 cm in the rectosigmoid area in 55 patients, of which 26 were removed by EMR using a DCG (DC group) and 29 by using an ordinary colonoscope or gastroscope (OS group). The mean size of the removed polyps, morphology, adverse effects, and other parameters were similar between the two groups. The mean procedural time was significantly lower in the DC group than in the OS group (24.4±18.3 minutes vs. 36.3±24.4 minutes, p=0.015). Moreover, in a subgroup of patients with polyps >40 mm, the statistical difference in the mean procedural time between the DC and OS groups was even more pronounced (33±21 minutes vs. 58.7±20.6 minutes, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the use of a DCG in the resection of large nonpedunculated rectosigmoid lesions significantly reduces the procedural time.

Use of a Double-Channel Gastroscope Reduces Procedural Time in Large Left-Sided Colonic Endoscopic Mucosal Resections

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal lesions is associated with increased procedural time. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of double-channel gastroscope (DCG) use on the procedural time of EMRs in the rectosigmoid area. METHODS: All EMRs for sessile or flat rectosigmoid lesions > or =2 cm performed between July 2011 and September 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: There were 55 lesions > or =2 cm in the rectosigmoid area in 55 patients, of which 26 were removed by EMR using a DCG (DC group) and 29 by using an ordinary colonoscope or gastroscope (OS group). The mean size of the removed polyps, morphology, adverse effects, and other parameters were similar between the two groups. The mean procedural time was significantly lower in the DC group than in the OS group (24.4+/-18.3 minutes vs. 36.3+/-24.4 minutes, p=0.015). Moreover, in a subgroup of patients with polyps >40 mm, the statistical difference in the mean procedural time between the DC and OS groups was even more pronounced (33+/-21 minutes vs. 58.7+/-20.6 minutes, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the use of a DCG in the resection of large nonpedunculated rectosigmoid lesions significantly reduces the procedural time.