Search

Background/Aims Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is burdened by its associated high risk of adverse events and long procedure time. Recently, a waterjet-assisted knife was introduced to simplify and speed up the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of waterjet-assisted ESD (WESD) compared to that of the conventional ESD (CESD) technique. Methods The charts of 254 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms were analyzed. The primary outcome was the en-bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, the need to switch to a hybrid ESD, procedure speed, the adverse event rates, and the recurrence rates. Results Approximately 174 neoplasias were considered, of which, 123 were removed by WESD and 51 by CESD. The en-bloc resection rate was higher in the WESD group (94.3% vs. 84.3%). Complete resection rates and curative resection rates were similar. The need to switch to a hybrid ESD was greater during CESD (39.2% vs. 13.8%). Procedure speed and adverse event rates were similar. During follow-up, one recurrence occurred after a WESD. Conclusions WESD allows a high rate of en-bloc resections and less frequently requires a rescue switch to the hybrid ESD compared to CESD.

Background and study aims Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Rescue therapies such as hybrid ESD (H-ESD) have been proposed for very difficult cases, as has underwater ESD (U-ESD). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of H-ESD and U-ESD in difficult cases. Patients and methods The hospital charts of consecutive patients referred for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 because they were considered difficult cases were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome of the study was en bloc resection rate; secondary outcomes were the rate of complete resection, procedure speed, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results Fifty-nine colorectal neoplasms were considered, 22 of which were removed by U-ESD and 37 by H-ESD. The en bloc resection rate in the U-ESD group was 100 %, while it was 59.5 % in the H-ESD group. Dissection speed was 17.7mm2/min in the U-ESD group and 8.3 mm2/min in the H-ESD group. The AE rate was low in the U-ESD group and moderately high during H-ESD (5 % and 21.6 %, respectively; and perforation rate 0 % and 10.8 %, respectively). Larger lesions were treated with U-ESD, while more fibrotic ones were treated with H-ESD. Conclusions U-ESD and H-ESD are both effective and safe techniques in difficult colorectal situations. U-ESD is particularly effective and fast for large lesions when it is not possible to obtain comfortable knife position, while H-ESD is more suitable for very fibrotic lesions.

Zenker's Diverticulum (ZD) is the most common hypopharyngeal diverticulum; however, it is often underdiagnosed. It results from the herniation of the mucosa and submucosa through Killian's Triangle. Dysphagia is the primary symptom, occurring in 80–90% of cases. The primary goal of treatment is to transect the cricopharyngeal muscle (CM) and connect the ZD cavity to the esophageal lumen. Traditional treatments include surgical open transcervical diverticulectomy and CM septomyotomy, using rigid or flexible endoscopes. However, surgery is burdened by technical difficulties and not negligible rates of adverse events (AEs). For this reason, endoscopic techniques for ZD treatment have gained traction in recent years. Flexible endoscopic septum division (FESD), introduced nearly 20 years ago, involves a full-thickness incision of the diverticular septum. The advent of third-space endoscopy has led to the application of these techniques to ZD treatment as well. Zenker-POEM (Z-POEM) and, subsequently, Per Oral Endoscopic Septomyotomy (POES) have been developed. Hybrid techniques, such as Peroral Endoscopic Diverticulotomy (POED) and tunneling-free methods, represent additional ZD treatment options. This review outlines the armamentarium of ZD endoscopic management, summarizing the characteristics of these techniques, their benefits and limitations, and highlighting future research directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and study aims Fusion imaging consists of overlaying preoperative imaging over live fluoroscopy, providing an augmented live guidance. Since 2017, we have been using a new hybrid operating room (Discovery IGS 740 OR, GE Healthcare) for biliopancreatic endoscopy, combining fusion imaging with traditional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This study aimed to assess the advantages that fusion imaging could bring to EUS-guided drainage of post-pancreatitis fluid collections. Patients and methods Thirty-five drainage procedures performed between 2012 and 2019 with traditional guidance and fusion imaging were retrospectively compared, assessing the overall treatment success rate – i. e. symptom improvement with complete PFC emptying – as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, time to resolution, hospital stay length, adverse events, recurrence rate, and procedure time. Results Patients treated with standard EUS (n = 17) and with fusion imaging (n = 18) were homogeneous in age, gender, pancreatitis etiology, and indication for drainage; the second group had larger PFCs, more frequently walled-off necrosis than pseudocysts, and were treated more emergently, indicating higher case complexity in this group. During the period when fusion imaging was adopted, procedures had a higher overall treatment success rate than during the period when standard EUS was adopted (83.3 % vs. 52.9 %, P = 0.075), and complete emptying was reached in less time (61.1 % vs. 23.6 % complete emptying within 90 days, P = 0.154), differences compatible with random fluctuations. Conclusions This study suggests that fusion imaging in combination with EUS might improve clinical and procedural outcomes of PFC drainage.