Risk of appendicitis after endoscopic full-thickness resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice: a retrospective analysis

A ghost epigastric pain

A 16-year-old woman complained of intermittent epigastric pain for one year. The gastroscopy, colonoscopy and laboratory findings were normal. Physical examination was unremarkable other than upper abdominal tenderness. The symptom was not relieved in past medical treatment. The abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan revealed appendix wall swelling and suspected appendicitis. Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) with eyeMax (Micro-tech, China) was proposed to perform after informed consent obtained. A colonoscopy with a transparent cap (Olympus, Japan) attached to the tip was inserted into the cecum, and advanced the level of appendicular orifice. Subsequently, the Gerlach's valve was pushed aside using the transparent cap. Finally, the eyeMax was placed in the appendicular orifice, slowly moved forward in appendicular lumen. The eyeMax showed a lot of appendicular stones, and irrigated repeatedly. The stones were expulsed smoothly. The patient was discharged two days later without recurrent epigastric pain on follow-up and to date.

Full-thickness resection device for management of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Endoscopic resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice is technically challenging and is commonly referred for surgical resection. However, post-resection appendicitis is a concern. Many studies have varying rates of post-procedure appendicitis. We aim to report the rate of post-resection appendicitis by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Studies that involved the use of a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for management of appendiceal polyps were included. The primary outcome was appendicitis after FTRD and a subgroup analysis was performed on studies that only included FTRD performed at the appendiceal orifice. Results Appendicitis was encountered in 15% (95%CI: [11-21]) of the patients with 61% (95% CI: [44-76]) requiring surgical management. Pooled rates of technical success, histologic FTR, and histologic R0 resection in this sub-group (n=123) were 92% (95% CI: [85-96]), 98% (95% CI: [93-100]), and 72% (95% CI: [64-84%]), respectively. Post-resection histopathological evaluation revealed a mean resected specimen size of 16.8 ± 5.4 mm, with non-neoplastic pathology in 9 (7%), adenomas in 103 (84%), adenomas + high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in nine (7%), and adenocarcinoma in two (2%). The pooled rate for non-appendicitis-related surgical management (technical failure and/or high-risk lesions) was 11 % (CI: 7-17). Conclusions FTRD appears to be an effective method for managing appendiceal lesions. However, appendicitis post-resection occurs in a non-trivial number of patients and the R0 resection rate in appendiceal lesions is only 72%. Therefore, caution should be employed in the use of this technique, considering the relative risks of surgical intervention in each patient.

Endoscopic Transcecal Appendectomy (ETA): A Literature Review on Risks and Benefits

Different colorectal lesions have attracted different procedures in their management. One of the novel approaches that have been documented in recent times is endoscopic transcecal appendectomy (ETA). ETA is an endoscopic and less invasive approach to the excision of lesions within the appendix. The appendix is also completely resected in the process. The main aim of this paper is to establish some of the benefits and risks that come with ETA. The study was conducted from a systematic review perspective using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, which governs the implementation of systematic reviews. Key considerations in the PRISMA framework used in this article include identifying the articles, screening them, and determining their eligibility and their final inclusion or exclusion based on the specified criteria. To arrive at relevant articles, some keywords were used in the various search engines of the databases that were consulted. Some of the keywords that were used included ETA, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), adverse events, risks, safety, efficacy, and the appendiceal orifice. It was established that the key benefits of the ETA include the ability to avoid postoperative appendicitis and residual lesions in tissue. On the other hand, some risks that could come with ETA were found to include potential tumor seeding and postoperative bleeding. However, the key study limitation is that most of the referenced studies in this literature review are retrospective case series and case reports that are prone to selection bias. Furthermore, most ETA procedures in this literature review were performed by a few experienced and highly skilled endoscopists, making the ability to make such results generalizable to all endoscopists and patient populations a debatable issue. In the future, there is a need for more multicenter and large studies to be conducted with longer follow-up periods to ascertain the results obtained in this review. This will ensure a more informed decision-making process for or against ETA implementation in real-world clinical environments.

Expanding endoscopic boundaries: Endoscopic resection of large appendiceal orifice polyps with endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Large appendiceal orifice polyps are traditionally treated surgically. Recently, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been utilized as alternative resection techniques.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection techniques for the management of large appendiceal orifice polyps.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of EMR and ESD for large appendiceal orifice polyps. This project was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Patients who underwent endoscopic resection of appendiceal orifice polyps ≥ 1 cm from 2015 to 2022 at a tertiary referral endoscopy center in the United States were enrolled. The main outcomes of this study included en bloc resection, R0 resection, post resection adverse events, and polyp recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were identified. Most patients were female (53%) and Caucasian (95%). The mean age was 63.3 ± 10.8 years, and the average body mass index was 28.8 ± 6.4. The mean polyp size was 25.5 ± 14.2 mm. 74% of polyps were localized to the appendix (at or inside the appendiceal orifice) and the remaining extended into the cecum. 68% of polyps occupied ≥ 50% of the appendiceal orifice circumference. The mean procedure duration was 61.6 ± 37.9 minutes. Polyps were resected via endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and hybrid procedures in 5, 6, and 8 patients, respectively. Final pathology was remarkable for tubular adenoma (n = 10) [one with high grade dysplasia], sessile serrated adenoma (n = 7), and tubulovillous adenoma (n = 2) [two with high grade dysplasia]. En bloc resection was achieved in 84% with an 88% R0 resection rate. Despite the large polyp sizes and challenging procedures, 89% (n = 17) of patients were discharged on the same day as their procedure. Two patients were admitted for post-procedure observation for conservative pain management. Eight patients underwent repeat colonoscopy without evidence of residual or recurrent adenomatous polyps.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights how endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and hybrid procedures are all appropriate techniques with minimal adverse effects, further validating the utility of endoscopic procedures in the management of large appendiceal polyps.

Difficult colorectal polypectomy: Technical tips and recent advances

Colonoscopy has been shown to be an effective modality to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) development. CRC reduction is achieved by detecting and removing adenomas, which are precursors of CRC. Most colorectal polyps are small and do not pose a significant challenge for trained and skilled endoscopists. However, up to 15% of polyps are considered “difficult”, potentially causing life-threatening complications. A difficult polyp is defined as any polyp that is challenging for the endoscopist to remove owing to its size, shape, or location. Advanced polypectomy techniques and skills are required to resect difficult colorectal polyps. There were various polypectomy techniques for difficult polyps such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), underwater EMR, Tip-in EMR, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), or endoscopic full-thickness resection. The selection of the appropriate modality depends on the morphology and endoscopic diagnosis. Several technologies have been developed to aid endoscopists in performing safe and effective polypectomies, especially complex procedures such as ESD. These advances include video endoscopy system, equipment assisting in advanced polypectomy, and closure devices/techniques for complication management. Endoscopists should know how to use these devices and their availability in practice to enhance polypectomy performance. This review describes several useful strategies and tips for managing difficult colorectal polyps. We also propose the stepwise approach for difficult colorectal polyps.

Adverse events of endoscopic full-thickness resection: results from the German and Dutch nationwide colorectal FTRD registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for complex colorectal lesions. Previous studies have demonstrated favorable safety results; however, large studies representing a generalizable estimation of adverse events (AEs) are lacking. Our aim was to provide further insight in AEs after eFTR.

METHODS

Data from all registered eFTR procedures in the German and Dutch colorectal full-thickness resection device registries between July 2015 and March 2021 were collected. Safety outcomes included immediate and late AEs.

RESULTS

Of 1892 procedures, the overall AE rate was 11.3% (213/1892). No AE-related mortality occurred. Perforations occurred in 2.5% (47/1892) of all AEs, 57.4% (27/47) of immediate AEs, and 42.6% (20/47) of delayed AEs. Successful endoscopic closure was achieved in 29.8% of cases (13 immediate and 1 delayed), and antibiotic treatment was sufficient in 4.3% (2 delayed). The appendicitis rate for appendiceal lesions was 9.9% (13/131), and 46.2% (6/13) could be treated conservatively. The severe AE rate requiring surgery was 2.2% (42/1892), including delayed perforations in .9% (17/1892) and immediate perforations in .7% (13/1892). Delayed perforations occurred between days 1 and 10 (median, 2) after eFTR, and 58.8% (10/17) were located on the left side. Other severe AEs were appendicitis (.4%, 7/1892), luminal stenosis (.1%, 2/1892), delayed bleeding (.1%, 1/1892), pain after eFTR close to the dentate line (.1%, 1/1892), and grasper entrapment in the clip (.1%, 1/1892).

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal eFTR is a safe procedure with a low risk for severe AEs in everyday practice and without AE-related mortality. These results further support the position of eFTR as an established minimally invasive technique for complex colorectal lesions.

[Current endoscopic resection techniques in the colorectum: possibilities, perspectives, limitations]

Since the first endoscopic polypectomies have been performed, the resection of premalignant lesions during colonoscopy has become a success story in the field of gastroenterology: Incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer have been significantly reduced with the implementation of screening programs. Most polyps in the lower gastrointestinal tract are small and easy to remove. However, larger polyps, early carcinomas and subepithelial lesions can be removed with modern endoscopic resection techniques as well. Minimally invasive endoscopic resections offer an organ-preserving alternative to surgery in a growing number of patients. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of traditional and novel endoscopic resection techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic full thickness resection.

Nontunneling Full Thickness Techniques for Neoplasia

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the world, second in the United States. Although most lesions are managed surgically especially when they have already invaded into the submucosal layer, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has become an emerging technique that can serve as a safe and effective alternative management for locally invasive gastrointestinal cancers. This article discusses the indications and various techniques and limitations of nontunneled EFTRs of gastrointestinal cancer and reviews the current literature on the outcomes of EFTR.

Current status of endoscopic full-thickness resection with the full-thickness resection device

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is an integral part of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy. Since its market launch in Europe in 2014, its safety and effectiveness have been proven in numerous studies. Adaptations in design as well as new techniques, such as hybrid EFTR, expand the spectrum of the FTRD system. The following review is intended to provide an overview of the clinical application and current evidence of EFTR with the FTRD system.

Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection: A Systematic Review

Background Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging therapeutic option for resecting subepithelial lesions (SELs) and epithelial neoplasms. We aimed to systematically review the techniques, applications, outcomes, and complications of EFTR.

Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed. All relevant original research articles involving EFTR were included for the review along with case report/series describing novel/rare techniques from 2001 to February 2022.

Results After screening 7,739 citations, finally 141 references were included. Non-exposed EFTR has lower probability of peritoneal contamination or tumor seeding compared with exposed EFTR. Among exposed EFTR, tunneled variety is associated with lower risk of peritoneal seeding or contamination compared with non-tunneled approach. Closure techniques involve though the scope (TTS) clips, loop and clips, over the scope clips (OTSC), full thickness resection device (FTRD), and endoscopic suturing/plicating/stapling devices. The indications of EFTR range from esophagus to rectum and include SELs arising from muscularis propria (MP), non-lifting adenoma, recurrent adenoma, and even early gastric cancer (EGC) or superficial colorectal carcinoma. Other indications include difficult locations (involving appendicular orifice or diverticulum) and full thickness biopsy for motility disorders. The main limitation of FTRD is feasibility in smaller lesions (<20–25 mm), which can be circumvented by hybrid EFTR techniques. Oncologic resection with lymphadencetomy for superficial GI malignancy can be accomplished by hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) combining EFTR and NOTES. Bleeding, perforation, appendicitis, enterocolonic fistula, FTRD malfunction, peritoneal tumor seeding, and contamination are among various adverse events. Post OTSC artifacts need to be differentiated from recurrent/residual lesions to avoid re-FTRD/surgery.

Conclusion EFTR is safe and effective therapeutic option for SELs, recurrent and non-lifting adenomas, tumors in difficult locations and selected cases of superficial GI carcinoma.

Endoscopic transcecal appendectomy: a new endotherapy for appendiceal orifice lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic transcecal appendectomy (ETA) has been reported as a minimally invasive alternative procedure for lesions involving the appendiceal orifice. The aim of this case series study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of ETA for lesions at the appendiceal orifice.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive patients with appendiceal orifice lesions who underwent ETA between December 2018 and March 2021. The primary outcome was technical success. The secondary outcomes included postoperative adverse events, postoperative hospital stay, and recurrence.

RESULTS

13 patients with appendiceal orifice lesions underwent ETA during the study period. The median lesion size was 20 mm (range 8-50). Lesions morphologies were polypoid lesions (n = 5), laterally spreading tumors (n = 4), and submucosal lesions (n = 4). Technical success with complete resection was achieved in all 13 cases. There were no postoperative bleeding, perforation, or intra-abdominal abscess. The median length of hospital stay after ETA was 8 days (range 6-18). There was no tumor recurrence during a median follow-up of 17 months (range 1-28).

CONCLUSIONS

ETA is feasible, safe, and effective for complete resection of appendiceal orifice lesions. Larger, multicenter, prospective studies are needed to further assess this technique.

Endoscopic management of difficult laterally spreading tumors in colorectum

Due to the advent of the screening programs for colorectal cancer and the era of quality assurance colonoscopy the number the polyps that can be considered difficult, including large (> 20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs), has increased in the last decade. All LSTs should be assessed carefully, looking for suspicious areas of submucosal invasion (SMI), such as nodules or depressed areas, describing the morphology according to the Paris classification, the pit pattern, and vascular pattern. The simplest, most appropriate and safest endoscopic treatment with curative intent should be selected. For LST-granular homogeneous type, piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection should be the first option due to its biological low risk of SMI. LST-nongranular pseudodepressed type has an increased risk of SMI, and en bloc resection should be mandatory. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is useful in situations where submucosal injection alters the operative field, e.g., for the resection of scar lesions, with no lifting, adjacent tattoo, incomplete resection attempts, lesions into a colonic diverticulum, in ileocecal valve and lesions with intra-appendicular involvement. Endoscopic full thickness resection is very useful for the treatment of difficult to resect lesions of less than 20 up to 25 mm. Among the indications, we highlight the treatment of polyps with suspected malignancy because the acquired tissue allows an exact histologic risk stratification to assign patients individually to the best treatment and avoid surgery for low-risk lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the only endoscopic procedure that allows completes en bloc resection regardless of the size of the lesion. It should therefore be indicated in the treatment of lesions with risk of SMI.

Minimally invasive treatment of a bulging appendiceal orifice

A 60-year-old fecal occult blood test-positive patient was referred to our center to undergo colonoscopy. Two diminutive sessile polyps were detected, macroscopically compatible with sessile serrated lesions (SSL), which were resected using cold-snare polypectomy. Furthermore, a bulging appendiceal orifice was identified with mucoid appearance (Figure 1, left). Biopsies were taken and abdominal computed tomography (CT) was performed (Figure 1, right). What is the diagnosis and which treatment would you consider?

Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of colonic neoplastic lesions ≤ 30 mm-a single-center experience

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (FTR) is a novel technique of endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplastic lesions not suitable for endoscopic polypectomy or mucosal resection. FTR appears to be a reasonable alternative to technically demanding endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions ≤ 30 mm. However, comparison between FTR and ESD has not been published yet and their mutual positioning in the treatment algorithm is still unclear. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of FTR in the treatment of colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm by comparing prospectively followed FTR cohort to retrospective ESD cohort in the setting of single tertiary endoscopy center. Primary outcomes were technical success rate, R0 resection and curative resection rate, and complication rate. A total of 52 patients in FTR and 50 patients in ESD group were treated between 2015 and 2018. Technical success rate was significantly higher in FTR group (92 vs. 74%, P = 0.01) as well as R0 resection rate (85 vs. 62%, P = 0.01) and curative resection rate (75 vs. 56%, P = 0.01). Complications occurred more frequently in ESD group (40 vs. 13%, P = 0.002), mainly due to high incidence of electrocoagulation syndrome (24 vs. 0%). Total procedure time was substantially shorter in FTR group (26.4 ± 11.0 min vs. estimated 90-240 min). Local residual neoplastic lesions were detected numerically more often in FTR group (12 vs. 5%, P = 0.12). No patient died during follow-up. Compared to ESD, FTR proved significantly higher technical success rate, higher R0 and curative resection rate, and shorter procedure time. In the FTR group, there were significantly less complications but higher incidence of local residual neoplasia. Further research including randomized trials is needed to compare both resection techniques.