Search

Background and study aims Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (

Objective: The advent and utility of new endoscopic imaging modalities for predicting the histology of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) in real time with high accuracy appear promising and could potentially obviate the need to perform random biopsies where guidelines are poorly adhered to. We embarked on evaluating the performance characteristics of white-light endoscopy with magnification (WLE-z), narrow-band imaging with magnification (NBI-z) and a combination of both modalities. Design: This was a prospective online study with 28 endoscopists from 11 countries (Asia-Pacific region) participating as assessors. In total, 35 patients with BE were assessed using 150 slides from WLE-z and NBI-z randomly arranged using a simple classification with corresponding histology. The overall Accuracy (Acc), Sensitivity (Sn), Specificity (Sp), Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of WLE-z, NBI-z and a combination of both were calculated. Results: The overall Acc for WLE-z and NBI-z images was 87.1 % and 88.7 %, respectively. When images from the two modalities were placed side by side, the Acc increased to 90.3 %. The Sn, Sp, PPV, and NPV of WLE-z were 48 %, 92 %, 45 %, and 93 % while with NBI-z, these improved to 89 %, 89 %, 56 %, and 98 %, respectively. When both imaging modalities were viewed together, they improved further to 93 %, 90 %, 61 %, and 99 %. Conclusion: The high NPV (99 %) when both WLE-z and NBI-z were used simultaneously indicates that areas with regular appearance that are diagnosed with confidence can effectively be left alone and not biopsied when performed at a skilled resourced center. This approach could potentially lead to a paradigm shift of how patients with BE are assessed.

Background and aims EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and rendezvous (EUS-RV) are acceptable rescue options for patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, there are limited training opportunities at most centers owing to low case volumes. The existing models do not replicate the difficulties encountered during EUS-BD. We aimed to develop and validate a model for stepwise learning of EUS-BD and EUS-RV, which replicates the actual EUS-BD procedures. Methods A hybrid model was created utilizing pig esophagus and stomach, with a synthetic duodenum and biliary system. The model was objectively assessed on a grade of 1 – 4 by two experts. Twenty-eight trainees were given initial training with didactic lectures and live procedures. This was followed by hands-on training in EUS-BD and EUS-RV on the hybrid model. Trainees were assessed for objective criteria of technical difficulties. Results Both the experts graded the model as very good or above for all parameters. All trainees could complete the requisite steps of EUS-BD and EUS-RV in a mean time of 11 minutes (8 – 18 minutes). Thirty-six technical difficulties were noted during the training (wrong scope position, 13; incorrect duct puncture, 12; guidewire related problems, 11). Technical difficulties peaked for EUS-RV, followed by hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) and choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) (20, 9, and 7, P = 0.001). At 10 days follow-up, nine of 28 trainees had successfully performed three EUS-RV and seven EUS-BD procedures independently. Conclusions The Mumbai EUS II hybrid model replicates situations encountered during EUS-RV and EUS-BD. Stepwise mentoring improves the chances of success in EUS-RV and EUS-BD procedures.

Intragastric balloons (IGBs) are an established treatment option for obesity. Major barriers to dissemination of IGBs include lack of long-term efficacy outcomes, safety concerns, cost, and tolerability. We developed a novel ingestible magnetically inflated balloon capsule (IMI-BC) in hopes of overcoming these challenges. The IMI-BC is significantly cheaper than IGBs currently available on the market. We performed proof-of-concept animal studies and a first-in-human feasibility study to demonstrate the feasibility of inflating the IMI-BC using an external magnet. Further studies are currently being conducted to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and long-term efficacy of the IMI-BC. When fully developed, we anticipate that this device will benefit obese patients.

Background and aim Recently, several guidelines with divergent recommendations on management of pancreatic cystic neoplasm have been published but the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic cyst ablation has not been thoroughly addressed. The aim of the current paper is to explore the issues surrounding EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation by generating a list of clinical questions and providing answers based on best scientific evidence available. Methods An expert panel in EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation was recruited from members of the Asian EUS group and an international expert panel. A list of clinical questions was created and each question allocated to one member to generate a statement in response. The statements were then discussed in three Internet conference meetings between October 2016 and October 2017. The statements were changed until consensus was obtained. Afterwards, the complete set of statements was sent to all the panelist to vote on strength of the statements, classification of the statement sand grading of the evidence. Results Twenty-three statements on EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic cyst ablation were formulated. The statements addressed indications for the procedures, technical aspects, pre-procedure and post-procedure management, management of complications, and competency and training in the procedures. Conclusion The current set of statements on EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation are the first to be published by any endoscopic society. Clinicians interested in developing the technique should reference these statements and future studies should address the key issues raised in the document.

Background and study aims The Master and Slave Transluminal Endoscopic Robot (MASTER) is a novel robotic endosurgical system with two operating arms that offer multiple degrees of freedom. We developed a new assessment tool, the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills in Endoscopy (GEARS-E), derived from existing tools in laparoscopic and robotic surgery, and evaluated its utility in the performance of procedures using MASTER. Methods This was a pilot study conducted in vivo and ex vivo on animals. Three operators (Novice-1, Novice-2 and Expert) performed a total of five endoscopic submucosal dissections (ESD) using MASTER. Novice operators had no MASTER experience and the expert had previously performed eight MASTER ESDs. Operator performance was assessed by four independent evaluators using GEARS-E, which has a maximum score of 25 for five domains representing various skill-related variables (depth perception, bimanual dexterity, efficiency, tissue handling and autonomy). Results The mean global rating scores for Novice-1 first attempt, Novice-1 second attempt, Novice-2 first attempt, Novice-2 second attempt and Expertʼs cases were 13.0, 16.0, 13.3, 15.5, and 21.5, respectively. The mean scores of each of the five domains were statistically higher for the second attempts compared to the first attempts for both Novice-1 and Novice-2. The mean scores of each of the five domains for the Expertʼs case were consistently higher than those for the two novice operators in both their first and second attempts. Conclusion Results using GEARS-E showed correlations between surgical experience and MASTER ESD. As an assessment tool for evaluation of surgical skills, GEARS-E has great potential for application in MASTER procedures.

Background and study aims: One of the challenges in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the lack of counter traction during submucosal dissection. MASTER (Master and Slave Transluminal Endoscopic Robot) was designed to allow performance of complex endoluminal procedures using two arms with excellent control. This study aimed to compare the performance of ESD between endoscopists and novices using MASTER. Methods: This is a prospective study comparing the differences in performing ESD using MASTER in an ex vivo porcine stomach model among individuals with or without experience in surgery and endoscopy. Multiple standardized lesions of 20 mm2 were pre-marked on an ex vivo porcine stomach. Each participant received basic training in controlling MASTER before the ESD procedure. The operative time and size of specimen obtained by each participant were noted. Results: Nine individuals (three ESD expert endoscopists, three ESD non-expert endoscopists, and three non-clinician novices) participated in the experiment. All participants completed the ESD procedure for en bloc resection of standardized lesions using EndoMASTER without perforation. The mean times (mean ± SD) taken by ESD expert endoscopists, ESD non-expert endoscopists, and novices to complete Robotic ESD were 122 ± 58 s, 203 ± 150 s, and 561 ± 496 s, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean operative time to complete the ESD between the three groups (P = 0.242). When the performance of the six endoscopists was compared to that of the three novices, the endoscopists took an average of 162 ± 111 s to complete the ESD, while the non-clinicians required an average of 561 ± 496 s (P = 0.085). Conclusions: There was a trend to shorter operative time when comparing endoscopists to non-endoscopists in performing ESD using MASTER. The use of MASTER enabled the novice without endoscopy experience to complete the ESD procedure.