Search

BACKGROUND AND AIM Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been reported as effective endoscopic treatment for superficial duodenal epithelial tumors (SDETs). However, it has been reported that a notable problem of UEMR for SDETs is that en bloc resection rate is relatively low. Therefore, we proposed a novel technique to improve en bloc resection rate: UEMR combining partial submucosal injection (PI-UEMR). The aim of this study is to evaluate efficacy and safety of PI-UEMR for SDETs by comparing to UEMR. METHODS This is a retrospective observational study in a single center. The patients who underwent UEMR or PI-UEMR from June 2010 to August 2020 were included in this study. Eligible patients were selected from included patients in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching. The clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection (procedure time, en bloc resection rate, complication rate [immediate perforation, delayed bleeding, delayed perforation]), and histopathological diagnosis (adenoma/cancer) were compared between each group. RESULTS Two hundred and twenty-eight patients were included in this study. Of included patients, 47 patients were selected in each group by propensity score matching. There were no statistical differences in procedure time (11 ± 1.2 min vs. 9 ± 1.2 min, P = 0.30), complication rate (immediate perforation [0% vs. 2%, P = 0.12], delayed bleeding [0% vs. 2%, P = 0.12], and no delayed perforation) and histopathological diagnosis (adenoma; 100% vs. 96%, P = 0.14) in each group. However, en bloc resection rate of PI-UEMR was significantly higher than UEMR (96% vs. 83%, P

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and Underwater EMR have been reported as effective endoscopic treatment for superficial duodenal tumor (SDET). However, a notable problem of EMR for SDET is technical difficulty for the lesion with non-lifting sign, and it of UEMR is that en bloc resection rate is relatively low. Therefore, we performed partial submucosal injection combining UEMR (PI-UEMR). The aim of this study is to evaluate feasibility and safety of this technique for duodenal tumor. This is a prospective observational study from tertiary care hospital. We performed PI-UEMR in patients with SDET that is 13–20 mm in diameter, or less than 13 mm with technical difficulty for EMR and UEMR from January 2019 to March 2020. Primary outcome was en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection rate, mean total procedure time, intra- and post-procedure complication. Thirty patients were included in this study. Mean age was 62 ± 12 years old. Three fourths lesions were located at anal side from major papilla. Median lesion size was 12 mm [IQR 10–16 mm]. Twenty-four cases were taken endoscopic biopsy in prior hospital and observed biopsy scar. En bloc resection rate was 97%. Ro resection rate was 83%. Mean total procedure time was 17 ± 12 min. And there was an only one case of complication, intra-procedure bleeding that was controllable endoscopically. PI-UEMR might be very useful and safe technique of endoscopic resection for SDET including relatively large lesions.

There are no reports on detailed endoscopic diagnosis of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) except for relatively small case series. Herein, we conducted a prospective observational study to investigate the relationship between endoscopic findings and histopathological diagnosis of SNADET. A total of 163 SNADET diagnosed using magnified endoscopic examination with image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE-ME) were prospectively registered in this study. We investigated location, size, macroscopic type, color, and IEE-ME findings including surface structure (closed- or open-loop) and presence of white opaque substance (WOS) in SNADET. We analyzed association between these findings and histopathological diagnosis of SNADET based on the Vienna classification (VCL) using logistic regression analysis. In univariate analysis, lesion size, superficial structure, and WOS deposition showed statistical significance, and the oral side of the lesion location showed statistical tendency for association with VCL C4/5. In multivariate analysis, lesion size (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; 95% CI, 1.94-4.39; P

Background and study aims Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still considered technically challenging; however, few studies have objectively analyzed predictors of the technical difficulty. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to elucidate predictors of the technical difficulty of duodenal ESD. Patients and methods This was a retrospective observational study. From June 2010 to June 2017, a total of 174 consecutive patients with superficial duodenal epithelial neoplasia who underwent ESD were included in this study. We tried to identify predictors for technical difficulty of ESD by defining technical difficulty as either procedure time > 100 minutes or intraprocedural perforation. Moreover, we constructed a scoring system consisting of factors that were significant in the multivariate analysis. Results The proportion of patients with technical difficulty was 34.5 %. In the multivariate analysis, lesion location in flexural part [odds ratio (OR), 2.61; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.02 – 6.68], larger lesion size (> 40 mm) (OR, 5.26; 95% CI, 2.15 – 12.9), and occupied circumference > 50 % of the duodenum (OR, 5.80; 95 % CI, 1.83 – 18.4) were associated with technical difficulty. Conclusion A lesion location in flexural part, lesion size >40 mm and occupied circumference > 50 % were risk factors for technical difficulty of duodenal ESD.

BACKGROUND AND AIM Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been reported as an alternative to conventional EMR for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET). However, the detailed outcomes are unclear. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between UEMR and EMR for SNADET

OBJECTIVES Endoscopic hand suturing (EHS) is expected to decrease the risk of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) bleeding by closing mucosal defects. We investigated the efficacy of EHS after gastric ESD in patients with antithrombotic agents. METHODS In this prospective single-arm trial, patients taking antithrombotic agents for cardiovascular disease, arrhythmia, cerebrovascular disease and/or peripheral arterial disease and having

It has been reported that the prophylactic closure of mucosal defects after duodenal endoscopic resection (ER) can reduce delayed adverse events; however, under certain circumstances, this can be technically challenging. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the predictors of difficulty during the complete closure of mucosal defects after duodenal ER.This was a retrospective study of duodenal lesions that underwent ER between July 2010 and May 2020. We reviewed the endoscopic images and analyzed the relationships between the degree of closure or closure time and clinical features of the lesions using univariate and multivariate analyses.We analyzed 698 lesions. The multivariate analysis revealed that lesion location in the medial or anterior wall (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.85; P .01) and a large lesion size (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.89; P = .03) were independent predictors of an increased risk of incomplete closure. Moreover, a large lesion size (β coefficient, .304; P .01), an occupied circumference over 50% (β coefficient, .178; P .01), intraoperative perforation (β coefficient, .175; P .01), treatment period (β coefficient, .143; P .01), and treatment with endoscopic submucosal dissection (β coefficient, .125; P .01) were independently and positively correlated with a prolonged closure time in the multiple regression analysis.This study revealed that lesion location in the medial or anterior wall and lesion size affected the incomplete closure of mucosal defects after duodenal ER, and lesion size, occupied circumference, intraoperative perforation, treatment period, and treatment method affected closure time.

Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered technically challenging and has a high risk of adverse events. However, we recently made some progress with the ESD technique and device by introducing 2 features: a water pressure (WP) method and a second-generation ESD knife (DualKnife) with a water jet function (DualKnife J). The present study aimed to assess whether these changes improved the clinical outcomes of duodenal ESD.This was a retrospective observational study. Among all patients who underwent ESD for superficial duodenal epithelial tumors from June 2010 to December 2018, patients in whom a single expert performed the procedure were included in this study. Various factors, including the use of the WP method and ESD devices (DualKnife or DualKnife J) and the treatment phase (early, mid, and late), were analyzed to determine whether they were associated with intraprocedural perforation and procedure time. Treatment phase was assigned by dividing the study population equally into 3 subgroups according to the treatment phase.The procedure time was significantly shorter, and the proportion of patients with intraprocedural perforations was the lowest in the late phase. Multivariate analysis of the use of the WP method revealed that it significantly decreased the intraprocedural perforation rate (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.96), and analysis of the use of both the WP method (β coefficient, -0.40; P .01) and the DualKnife J (β coefficient, -0.10; P = .032) revealed they were independently and negatively correlated with procedure time.The present study reveals that the WP method significantly reduced the intraprocedural perforation rate and that both the WP method and the DualKnife J significantly shortened procedure times for duodenal ESD.

Metachronous colorectal lesions sometimes occur at anastomotic sites following colorectal surgery, which increases the risk of developing colorectal cancer. However, these lesions are difficult to treat even with minimally invasive methods such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Thus, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESD for colorectal lesions at anastomotic sites following colorectal surgery. We retrospectively investigated 11 patients with post-surgical colorectal lesions at anastomotic sites who later underwent ESD from May 2010 to April 2019 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. We examined the patients’ background (tumor location, macroscopic type, tumor size, histological type, and depth of invasion) and treatment outcomes (procedure duration, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse events). The patients’ mean age was 66 years. There were two lesions in the transverse colon, six in the rectum, one in the anal canal, and two in the ileal pouch. The median tumor size was 25 mm. The macroscopic types were the protruded type (1 lesion) and the flat or depressed type (10 lesions). The pathological diagnoses were adenoma (4 lesions), intramucosal cancer (corresponding to high-grade dysplasia) (6 lesions), and muscularis propria cancer (1 lesion). The median procedure duration was 50 min; en bloc resection rate was 88.9% and R0 resection rate was 66.7%. The only adverse event was delayed post-ESD bleeding. A high en bloc resection rate without perforation was achieved with ESD for lesions at anastomotic sites. Although ESD for lesions at anastomotic sites is a technically challenging procedure because of severe submucosal fibrosis, this approach could prevent the need for repeated surgical resection.