Search

Abstract Although gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used, the degree of difficulty varies greatly depending on the lesion. Since the multi-loop traction device (MLTD) has been suggested to shorten the procedure time in colorectal ESD, we examined the efficacy and safety of using the MLTD in gastric ESD. Thirty patients with gastric neoplasms were prospectively enrolled from February 2022 to December 2022, and the outcomes of ESD with the MLTD were evaluated. The primary outcomes were procedure time and dissection speed. The secondary outcomes were en bloc and R0 resection rates, MLTD attachment time, and complications of ESD with the MLTD. After excluding 1 patient, 29 patients (29 lesions) were treated by ESD with the MLTD. The median procedure time was 26 min (range, 9–210 min), and the median submucosal dissection speed was 39.9 mm2/min (12.4–102.7 mm2/min). The rate of en bloc resection was 100%, the median MLTD attachment time was 3 min (1–7 min), and none of the patients showed intraoperative or postoperative perforations. Thus, gastric ESD with the MLTD showed a favorable procedure time and dissection speed and an acceptable complication rate. Hence, the MLTD may be effective for gastric ESD.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a widely used alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) when ERCP is unsuccessful or there are contraindications such as duodenal stenosis or postsurgical intestinal reconstruction. Therefore, we retrospectively investigated the therapeutic outcomes of EUS-BD in a medium-sized hospital. Patients and methods We included 31 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-BD at the Kitasato University Medical Center between April 2018 and October 2021. Patient characteristics, technical and clinical success rates, stent patency, adverse events (AEs), and procedure time were analyzed. Results Of the 31 patients included in this study, one underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and 30 underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticoenterostomy (EUS-HES). The technical success rates were 100 % for EUS-CDS and 96.8 % for EUS-HES because EUS-HES was unsuccessful in one patient who then underwent EUS-CDS as an alternative treatment. The clinical success rates were 100 % for EUS-CDS and 96.7% for EUS-HES. The median follow-up period was 84 days (range: 14–483 days). Zero and 5 (16.6 %) patients who underwent EUS-CDS and EUS, respectively had stent dysfunction. The median stent patency (stent dysfunction and death) for EUS-HES was 124 days. AEs were observed in only two patients (6.7 %) who underwent EUS-HES. Conclusions EUS-BD is now more widely used than before, and advances in the devices used have enabled the procedure to be performed more safely. Our results suggest that this introduction in medium-sized hospitals can be conducted safely.

Background/Aims Cholecystitis can occur after the placement of covered self-expandable metallic stents for distal malignant biliary obstructions. We aimed to identify risk factors for cholecystitis following covered self-expandable metallic stent placement. Methods We investigated risk factors related to cholecystitis following covered self-expandable metallic stent placement in 118 patients with distal malignant biliary obstructions between January 1, 2015 and April 30, 2019. Endoscopic assessments and tumor invasion to the arteries feeding the gallbladder were determined by a pancreaticobiliary endoscopist and a radiologist, respectively. Results The median patient age was 72 years (men, 61.0%). The flow of the contrast agent into the gallbladder and tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct were observed in 35 (29.7%) and 35 (29.7%) patients, respectively. During the observation period (median, 179 days), cholecystitis occurred in 18 (15.3%) patients. Multivariate analysis revealed the flow of the contrast agent into the gallbladder (p=0.023) and tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct (p=0.005) as significant independent risk factors associated with cholecystitis. Conclusions The flow of the contrast agent into the gallbladder and tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct are potential independent risk factors for cholecystitis following the placement of covered self-expandable metallic stents. A follow-up prospective study is warranted to validate their influence.

Abstract Objectives We evaluated the usefulness of a newly developed system with which the total amount of whitish cores in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration biopsy (EUS‐FNAB) samples is automatically calculated (automated multiband imaging system [AMUS]). Methods From 30 prospectively enrolled patients suspected of having pancreatic cancer, four EUS‐FNAB specimens per patient were obtained. Following AMUS calculations, two specimens were prepared after stereomicroscopy‐guided manual division into whitish and reddish sections (isolation group), and the other two were prepared without such division (no‐isolation group). The relation of the AMUS results pertaining to the length of the manually measured whitish cores (stereo‐microscopically visible white core [SVWC]) and the sample suitability for pathologic evaluation were analyzed. Results Histological diagnostic accuracy was 90%; median SVWC length, 14 mm; and median area of whitish core calculated using the AMUS, 13 mm2. The SVWC length correlated with whitish core amount (ρ = 0.83, p < 0.01) and adequacy score (ρ = 0.50, p < 0.01). The whitish core amount correlated with the adequacy score (ρ = 0.40, p < 0.01). The area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve calculated for whitish core amount with respect to the histological diagnosis was 0.84 (p < 0.01; cutoff ≥ 8 mm2, sensitivity 92.5%). Subgroup analysis (isolation vs. no‐isolation group) revealed no significant between‐group differences in the median histological adequacy (p = 0.27) or tumor cell content ratio (p = 0.28). The median scores for degree of blood contamination were significantly lower in the isolation group than in the no‐isolation group (p < 0.01). Conclusion AMUS is a simple on‐site verification procedure for determining the appropriate sampling tissue quantity for high diagnostic accuracy.