Search

This is the fifth in a series of papers entitled 'Controversies in EUS.' In the current paper, we deal with high-resolution catheter probes, otherwise known as EUS miniprobes (EUS-MPs). The application of miniprobes for early carcinomas in the entire intestinal tract, for subepithelial lesions, and for findings in the bile duct and pancreatic duct as well as endobronchial use is critically discussed. Submucous lesions, especially in the colon, but also early carcinomas in special cases are considered the most important indications. The argument is illustrated by numerous examples.

In "What should be known prior to performing EUS exams, Part I," the authors discussed the need for clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking EUS examinations. Herewith, we present part II which addresses some (technical) controversies how EUS is performed and discuss from different points of view providing the relevant evidence as available. (1) Does equipment design influence the complication rate? (2) Should we have a standardized screen orientation? (3) Radial EUS versus longitudinal (linear) EUS. (4) Should we search for incidental findings using EUS?

Background and Objectives: Quality indicators for the performance of EUS have been developed to monitor and improve service value and patient outcomes. To support the incorporation of these indicators and standardize EUS documentation, we propose standard EUS reporting elements for endosonographers and endoscopy units. Methods: A comprehensive literature search and review was performed to identify EUS quality indicators and key components of high-quality standardized EUS reporting. Guidance statements regarding standard EUS reporting elements were developed and reviewed at the Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasound (FOCUS) 2019 Annual Meeting. Results: EUS reporting elements can be divided into preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural items. Preprocedural components include the type, indication, and urgency of the procedure and patient clinical information and consent. Intraprocedural components include the adequacy and extent of examination, relevant landmarks, lesion characteristics, sampling method, specimen quality, and intraprocedural adverse events. Postprocedural components include a summary and synthesis of relevant findings as well as recommended management and follow-up. Conclusions: Standardizing reporting elements may help improve the care of patients undergoing EUS procedures. Our review provides a practical guide and compilation of recommended reporting elements to ensure ongoing best practices and quality improvement in EUS.

Background and Objectives: The aim of the study was to perform the first randomized trial comparing the diagnostic yield, bloodiness, and cellularity of the 25G standard needle (25S) and the 25G ProCore™ needle (25P). Materials and Methods: All patients referred to the tertiary care referral center for EUS guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of suspicious solid pancreatic lesions were eligible. EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion with both 25S and 25P needles (the choice of the first needle was randomized), using a multipass sampling pattern, without stylet or suction. Rapid on-site evaluation was used when possible. Pap-stained slides were read by a single experienced cytopathologist, blinded to the needle type. Results: One hundred and forty-three patients were recruited. Samples were positive for cancer in 122/143 (85.3%) with the 25S needle versus 126/143 (88.1%) with the 25P needle, negative in 17/143 (11.9%) with the 25S needle versus 13/143 (9.1%) with the 25P needle, and suspicious in 4/143 (2.8%) with each needle. There was no difference in any outcome based on the type of the first needle. No carryover effect was detected (P = 0.214; NS). Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no associations between the type of needle and diagnostic yield for cancer, cellularity, or bloodiness. The difference in the yield for cancer was 2.9% (−4.2; 10.1%); with the confidence interval upper within the predetermined noninferiority margin of 15%. Conclusion: The 25S needle is noninferior to the 25P needle for diagnosing cancer in suspicious pancreatic lesions.

Numerous clinical pathways exist for patients presenting with a suspicious pancreatic mass. These range from direct surgical intervention following staging, with preoperative cross-sectional imaging, EUS with or without fine-needle aspiration or fine-needle core biopsy; neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy; or palliation. Although international guidelines exist for pancreas cancer management, the ideal workup and treatment for a suspicious pancreas mass is unclear. During its annual meeting in September 2017 (The Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasonography), the Canadian Society of Endoscopic Ultrasound organized a working group of experienced endosonographers and hepatobiliary surgeons from across Canada to achieve this goal.

Recently, we introduced a series of papers describing on how to perform certain techniques and controversies in EUS. In the first paper, “What should be known before performing EUS examinations, Part I,” the authors discussed clinical information and whether other imaging modalities should be needed before embarking in EUS examination. In Part II, some technical controversies on how EUS is performed are discussed from different points of view by providing the relevant available evidence. Herewith, we describe on how to perform EUS-guided fine needle tattooing (FNT) in daily practice. The aim of this paper is to discuss pros and cons for several issues including historical remarks, injecting material, technical approach, and how to perform EUS-FNT including argues in favor and against.

Background and Objectives: Currently, pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are recognized with increasing frequency and have become a more common finding in clinical practice. EUS is challenging in the diagnosis of PCLs and evidence-based decisions are lacking in its application. This study aimed to develop strong recommendations for the use of EUS in the diagnosis of PCLs, based on the experience of experts in the field. Methods: A survey regarding the practice of EUS in the evaluation of PCLs was drafted by the committee member of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). It was disseminated to experts of EUS who were also members of the ISEUS-TF. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized. Results: Fifteen questions were extracted and disseminated among 60 experts for the survey. Fifty-three experts completed the survey within the specified time frame. The average volume of EUS cases at the experts' institutions is 988.5 cases per year. Conclusion: Despite the limitations of EUS alone in the morphologic diagnosis of PCLs, the results of the survey indicate that EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration is widely expected to become a more valuable method.

Objective: This study aims to determine the yield of EUS in patients with common bile duct (CBD) dilation and normal liver function tests (LFTs). Materials and Methods: Between October 2000 and December 2016, all patients referred for EUS for unexplained CBD dilatation (CBD ≥7 mm), with normal aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin and no history of sphincterotomy, were eligible. Linear-array EUS was performed by one of the two experienced endosonographers. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database. Results: Of 29,920 upper gastrointestinal EUS procedures performed, 840/29,920 (3%) were for unexplained CBD dilation. Of 840 patients, 199 (24%) had normal LFTs, 99% were Caucasian, 46% had biliary-type abdominal pain, and 41% were postcholecystectomy. EUS diagnosed choledocholithiasis (CDL) or sludge in 18/199 (9%) patients (7/18 had CBD sludge only). No other pathology was diagnosed. Of 18 CDL patients, 15 (83%) had an intact gallbladder, and all 15 patients had cholelithiasis. The frequency of CDL or sludge in postcholecystectomy patients was only 3.7% (3/82); none of these patients were younger than 69 years of age. Regression analyses showed no associations between EUS diagnosis of CDL or sludge and biliary-type abdominal pain, other symptoms, sex, or race. Each additional year of age was associated with an increase in the risk of CDL or sludge by a factor of 1.05 (odds ratio: 1.05; P = 0.034). Summary: In patients with CBD dilation and normal LFTs, the only significant pathology identified is CBD stones or sludge (almost exclusively in elderly patients with cholelithiasis). Conclusion: EUS should be avoided in patients with dilated bile ducts and normal LFTs, especially if under 65 years of age and postcholecystectomy.

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) was shown to be useful for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, there is lack of consensus on how EUS-BD should be performed. Methods: This was a worldwide multi-institutional survey among members of the International Society of EUS conducted in February 2018. The survey consisted of 10 questions related to the practice of EUS-BD. Results: Forty-six endoscopists of them completed the survey. The majority of endoscopists felt that EUS-BD could replace percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failure of ERCP. Among all EUS-BD methods, the rendezvous stenting technique should be the First choice. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) were recommended by most endoscopists. For EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), superiority of partially-covered SEMS over fully-covered SEMS was not in agreement. 6-Fr cystotomes were recommended for fistula creation. During the HGS approach, longer SEMS (8 or 10 cm) was recommended. During the choledochoduodenostomy approach, 6-cm SEMS was recommended. During the intrahepatic (IH) approach, the IH segment 3 was recommended. Conclusion: This is the first worldwide survey on the practice of EUS-BD for MBO. There were wide variations in practice, and randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for the management of this condition.