Search

Background Esophageal anastomotic leakage still represents a challenging complication after esophageal surgery. Endoscopically placed self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are the treatment of choice, but since the introduction of endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for esophageal leakage 10 years ago, increasing evidence has demonstrated that EVT might be a superior alternative. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and related morbidity of SEMS and EVT in the treatment of esophageal leak. Methods We systematically searched for studies comparing SEMS and EVT to treat anastomotic leakage after esophageal surgery. Predefined end points including outcome, treatment success, endoscopy, treatment duration, hospitalization time, morbidity, and mortality were assessed and included in the meta-analysis. Results Five retrospective studies including 274 patients matched the inclusion criteria. Compared with stenting, EVT was significantly associated with a higher rate of leak closure (odds ratio [OR] 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 7.98), more endoscopic device changes (pooled median difference of 3.09; 95 % CI 1.54 to 4.64]), a shorter duration of treatment (pooled median difference - 11.90 days; 95% CI - 18.59 to -5.21 days), and a lower mortality rate (OR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.18 to 0.83). There were no significant differences in short-term and major complications. Conclusions Owing to the retrospective quality of the studies with potential biases, the results of the meta-analysis must be interpreted with caution. However, the analysis indicates the potential benefit of EVT, which should be further investigated with standardized and prospectively collected data.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA or biopsy sampling is widely practiced. Optimal sonographic visualization of the needle is critical for image-guided interventions. Of the several commercially available needles, bench-top testing and direct comparison of these needles have not been done to reveal their inherent echogenicity. The aims are to provide bench-top data that can be used to guide clinical applications and to promote future device research and development. METHODS: Descriptive bench-top testing and comparison of 8 commonly used EUS-FNA needles (all size 22 gauge): SonoTip Pro Control (Medi-Globe); Expect Slimline (Boston Scientific); EchoTip, EchoTip Ultra, EchoTip ProCore High Definition (Cook Medical); ClearView (Conmed); EZ Shot 2 (Olympus); and BNX (Beacon Endoscopic), and 2 new prototype needles, SonoCoat (Medi-Globe), coated by echogenic polymers made by Encapson. Blinded evaluation of standardized and unedited videos by 43 EUS endoscopists and 17 radiologists specialized in GI US examination who were unfamiliar with EUS needle devices. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the ratings and rankings of these needles between endosonographers and radiologists. Overall, 1 prototype needle was rated as the best, ranking 10% to 40% higher than all other needles (P < .01). Among the commercially available needles, the EchoTip Ultra needle and the ClearView needle were top choices. The EZ Shot 2 needle was ranked statistically lower than other needles (30%-75% worse, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: All FNA needles have their inherent and different echogenicities, and these differences are similarly recognized by EUS endoscopists and radiologists. Needles with polymeric coating from the entire shaft to the needle tip may offer better echogenicity.

Background and Aims EUS-guided FNA or biopsy sampling is widely practiced. Optimal sonographic visualization of the needle is critical for image-guided interventions. Of the several commercially available needles, bench-top testing and direct comparison of these needles have not been done to reveal their inherent echogenicity. The aims are to provide bench-top data that can be used to guide clinical applications and to promote future device research and development. Methods Descriptive bench-top testing and comparison of 8 commonly used EUS-FNA needles (all size 22 gauge): SonoTip Pro Control (Medi-Globe); Expect Slimline (Boston Scientific); EchoTip, EchoTip Ultra, EchoTip ProCore High Definition (Cook Medical); ClearView (Conmed); EZ Shot 2 (Olympus); and BNX (Beacon Endoscopic), and 2 new prototype needles, SonoCoat (Medi-Globe), coated by echogenic polymers made by Encapson. Blinded evaluation of standardized and unedited videos by 43 EUS endoscopists and 17 radiologists specialized in GI US examination who were unfamiliar with EUS needle devices. Results There was no significant difference in the ratings and rankings of these needles between endosonographers and radiologists. Overall, 1 prototype needle was rated as the best, ranking 10% to 40% higher than all other needles (P < .01). Among the commercially available needles, the EchoTip Ultra needle and the ClearView needle were top choices. The EZ Shot 2 needle was ranked statistically lower than other needles (30%-75% worse, P < .001). Conclusions All FNA needles have their inherent and different echogenicities, and these differences are similarly recognized by EUS endoscopists and radiologists. Needles with polymeric coating from the entire shaft to the needle tip may offer better echogenicity., BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA or biopsy sampling is widely practiced. Optimal sonographic visualization of the needle is critical for image-guided interventions. Of the several commercially available needles, bench-top testing and direct comparison of these needles have not been done to reveal their inherent echogenicity. The aims are to provide bench-top data that can be used to guide clinical applications and to promote future device research and development.METHODS: Descriptive bench-top testing and comparison of 8 commonly used EUS-FNA needles (all size 22 gauge): SonoTip Pro Control (Medi-Globe); Expect Slimline (Boston Scientific); EchoTip, EchoTip Ultra, EchoTip ProCore High Definition (Cook Medical); ClearView (Conmed); EZ Shot 2 (Olympus); and BNX (Beacon Endoscopic), and 2 new prototype needles, SonoCoat (Medi-Globe), coated by echogenic polymers made by Encapson. Blinded evaluation of standardized and unedited videos by 43 EUS endoscopists and 17 radiologists specialized in GI US examination who were unfamiliar with EUS needle devices.RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the ratings and rankings of these needles between endosonographers and radiologists. Overall, 1 prototype needle was rated as the best, ranking 10% to 40% higher than all other needles (P < .01). Among the commercially available needles, the EchoTip Ultra needle and the ClearView needle were top choices. The EZ Shot 2 needle was ranked statistically lower than other needles (30%-75% worse, P < .001).CONCLUSIONS: All FNA needles have their inherent and different echogenicities, and these differences are similarly recognized by EUS endoscopists and radiologists. Needles with polymeric coating from the entire shaft to the needle tip may offer better echogenicity.

Background Esophageal anastomotic leakage still represents a challenging complication after esophageal surgery. Endoscopically placed self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are the treatment of choice, but since the introduction of endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for esophageal leakage 10 years ago, increasing evidence has demonstrated that EVT might be a superior alternative. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and related morbidity of SEMS and EVT in the treatment of esophageal leak. Methods We systematically searched for studies comparing SEMS and EVT to treat anastomotic leakage after esophageal surgery. Predefined end points including outcome, treatment success, endoscopy, treatment duration, hospitalization time, morbidity, and mortality were assessed and included in the meta-analysis. Results Five retrospective studies including 274 patients matched the inclusion criteria. Compared with stenting, EVT was significantly associated with a higher rate of leak closure (odds ratio [OR] 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 7.98), more endoscopic device changes (pooled median difference of 3.09; 95%CI 1.54 to 4.64]), a shorter duration of treatment (pooled median difference -11.90 days; 95%CI -18.59 to -5.21 days), and a lower mortality rate (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.83). There were no significant differences in short-term and major complications. Conclusions Owing to the retrospective quality of the studies with potential biases, the results of the meta-analysis must be interpreted with caution. However, the analysis indicates the potential benefit of EVT, which should be further investigated with standardized and prospectively collected data.

Background Esophageal anastomotic leakage still represents a challenging complication after esophageal surgery. Endoscopically placed self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are the treatment of choice, but since the introduction of endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for esophageal leakage 10 years ago, increasing evidence has demonstrated that EVT might be a superior alternative. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and related morbidity of SEMS and EVT in the treatment of esophageal leak. Methods We systematically searched for studies comparing SEMS and EVT to treat anastomotic leakage after esophageal surgery. Predefined end points including outcome, treatment success, endoscopy, treatment duration, hospitalization time, morbidity, and mortality were assessed and included in the meta-analysis. Results Five retrospective studies including 274 patients matched the inclusion criteria. Compared with stenting, EVT was significantly associated with a higher rate of leak closure (odds ratio [OR] 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 7.98), more endoscopic device changes (pooled median difference of 3.09; 95%CI 1.54 to 4.64]), a shorter duration of treatment (pooled median difference -11.90 days; 95%CI -18.59 to -5.21 days), and a lower mortality rate (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.83). There were no significant differences in short-term and major complications. Conclusions Owing to the retrospective quality of the studies with potential biases, the results of the meta-analysis must be interpreted with caution. However, the analysis indicates the potential benefit of EVT, which should be further investigated with standardized and prospectively collected data.