Search

The author reflects on endoscopic alternatives such as endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‑guided gallbladder drainage (EGBD) to cure Percutaneous cholecystostomy or percutaneous transhepatic gall bladder drainage (PTGBD) where patients suffer from acute cholecystitis.

We recently introduced a series of articles that dealt with controversies in EUS. In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information is necessary prior to EUS and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking on EUS examinations. Part II focuses on technical details and controversies about the use of EUS in special situations. In this article, important practical issues regarding the application of contrast-enhanced EUS in various clinical settings are raised and controversially discussed from different points of view., Competing Interests: None

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., Competing Interests: None

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.

Background and study aims: How enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (e-ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) compare in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy is currently unknown. The aims of this study were to compare efficacy and safety of both techniques and study predictors of these outcomes. Patients and methods: This was an international, multicenter comparative cohort study at 10 tertiary centers. Outcomes data included technical success (biliary access with cholangiography and stent placement [when indicated]), clinical success (resolution of biliary obstruction) and adverse events (AEs) (graded according to the ASGE lexicon). Results: A total of 98 patients underwent EUS-BD (n = 49) or e-ERCP (n = 49). Technical success was achieved in 48 (98 %) patients in the EUS-BD group as compared to 32 (65.3 %) patients in the e-ERCP group (OR 12.48, P  = 0.001). Clinical success was attained in 88 % of patients in EUS-BD group as compared to 59.1 % in the e-ERCP group (OR 2.83, P  = 0.03). Procedural time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group (55 min vs 95 min, P  < 0.0001). AEs occurred more commonly in the EUS-BD group (20 % vs. 4 %, P  = 0.01). However, the majority (90 %) of AEs were mild/moderate. Length of stay was significantly longer in the EUS-BD group (6.6 d vs. 2.4 d, P  < 0.0001). Conclusions: EUS-BD can be performed with a higher degree of clinical efficacy and shorter procedure time than e-ERCP in patients with surgically-altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. Whether or not this approach should be first-line therapy in this patient population is highly dependent on the indication for the procedure, the patient's anatomy, and local practice and expertise.

Background and Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to traditional radiologic and surgical drainage procedures after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, prospective multicenter data are lacking. The aims of this study were to prospectively assess the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction., Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients at 12 tertiary centers (5 US, 5 European, 1 Asian, 1 South American) with malignant distal biliary obstruction and failed ERCP underwent EUS-BD. Technical success was defined as successful stent placement in the desired position. Clinical success was defined as a reduction in bilirubin by 50 % at 2 weeks or to below 3 mg/dL at 4 weeks. Adverse events were prospectively tracked and graded according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) lexicon's severity grading system. Overall survival and duration of stent patency were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis., Results: A total of 96 patients (mean age 66 years, female 45 %, pancreatic cancer 55 %) underwent EUS-BD. Stent placement (technical success) was achieved in 92 (95.8 %) patients (metallic stent 84, plastic stent 8). Mean procedure time was 40 minutes. Clinical success was achieved in 86 (89.5 %) patients. A total of 10 (10.5 %) adverse events occurred: pneumoperitoneum (n = 2), sheared wire (n = 1), bleeding (n = 1), bile leak (n = 3), cholangitis (n = 2), and unintentional perforation (n = 1); 4 graded as mild, 4 moderate, 1 severe, and 1 fatal (due to perforation). A total of 38 (44 %) patients died of disease progression during the study period. The median patient survival was 167 days (95 %CI 112 - 221) days. The 6-month stent patency rate was 95 % (95 %CI 94.94 - 95.06 %) and the 1-year stent patency was 86 % (95 %CI 85.74 - 86.26 %)., Conclusion: This study on EUS-BD demonstrates excellent efficacy and safety of EUS-BD when performed by experts., Study Registration: NCT01889953.

Objectives: To review the short-term outcome of endoscopic resection of superficial upper gastro-intestinal lesions in Hong Kong., Design: Historical cohort study., Setting: All Hospital Authority hospitals in Hong Kong., Patients: This was a multicentre retrospective study of all patients who underwent endoscopic resection of superficial upper gastro-intestinal lesions between January 2010 and June 2013 in all government-funded hospitals in Hong Kong., Main Outcome Measures: Indication of the procedures, peri-procedural and procedural parameters, oncological outcomes, morbidity, and mortality., Results: During the study period, 187 lesions in 168 patients were resected. Endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 34 (18.2%) lesions and endoscopic submucosal dissection in 153 (81.8%) lesions. The mean size of the lesions was 2.6 (standard deviation, 1.8) cm. The 30-day morbidity rate was 14.4%, and perforations and severe bleeding occurred in 4.3% and 3.2% of the patients, respectively. Among patients who had dysplasia or carcinoma, R0 resection was achieved in 78% and the piecemeal resection rate was 11.8%. Lateral margin involvement was 14% and vertical margin involvement was 8%. Local recurrence occurred in 9% of patients and 15% had residual disease. The 2-year overall survival rate and disease-specific survival rate was 90.6% and 100%, respectively., Conclusion: Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection were introduced in low-to-moderate-volume hospitals with acceptable morbidity rates. The short-term survival was excellent. However, other oncological outcomes were higher than those observed in high-volume centres and more secondary procedures were required.

Oesophageal haemangiomas are rare, benign, vascular tumours that have characteristic features on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. This enables radiologists to suggest the correct diagnosis without the need for invasive biopsy. Diagnostic characteristics include phleboliths seen on computed tomography, and intense homogeneous enhancement of the lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. These tumours have life-threatening haemorrhagic potential and therefore require surgical resection.