Endoscopic ultrasound guided versus surgical transrectal drainage of pelvic abscesses

Rectal implantation cyst successfully diagnosed using endoscopic myotomy and endoscopic ultrasonography

An 81-year-old woman who underwent laparoscopic-assisted low anterior resection with instrumented anastomosis using the double stapling technique for rectal cancer 5 years ago was found to have an enlarged anastomotic mass on computed tomography. On colonoscopy, the anastomotic mass was observed as a 30-mm-sized subepithelial lesion, which was presumed to be the submucosa on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration was performed; however, no cellular components were collected. Therefore, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was performed to remove the entire anastomotic mass. However, any lesion in the submucosa was not detected during ESD, and the lesion was suspected to be located deeper than the submucosa. Therefore, EUS was performed from the muscule layer just below the dissected submucosa, and the mass was detected outside the muscle layer in contact with the rectal wall. Upon endoscopic incision of the muscle layer, milky white mucus was excreted into the rectal lumen. Subsequently, the scope was advanced to an area outside the muscle layer where the mass was located, which was a closed lumen with mucus retention. Surface biopsy of the closed lumen revealed normal colonic mucosa. Therefore, the subepithelial lesion was diagnosed as an implantation cyst arising outside the rectal wall.

Safety profile of a multimodal fail-safe model to minimize postoperative complications in oncologic colorectal resections-a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Despite innovations in surgical techniques, major complications following colorectal surgery still lead to a significant morbidity and mortality. There is no standard protocol for perioperative management of patients with colorectal cancer. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a multimodal fail-safe model in minimizing severe surgical complications following colorectal resections.

METHODS

We compared major complications in patients with colorectal cancers who underwent surgical resections with anastomosis during 2013-2014 (control group) with patients treated during 2015-2019 (fail-safe group). The fail-safe group had preoperative bowel preparation and a perioperative single dose of antibiotics, on-table bowel irrigation and early sigmoidoscopic assessment of anastomosis in rectal resections. A standard surgical technique for tension-free anastomosis was adapted in the fail-safe approach. The chi-square test measured relationships between categorical variables, t-test estimated the probability of differences, and the multivariate regression analysis determined the linear correlation among independent and dependent variables.

RESULTS

A total of 924 patients underwent colorectal operations during the study period; however, 696 patients had surgical resections with primary anastomoses. There were 427 (61.4%) laparoscopic and 230 (33.0%) open operations, while 39 (5.6%) laparoscopic procedures were converted. Overall, the rate of major complications (Dindo-Clavien grade IIIb-V) significantly reduced from 22.6% for the control group to 9.8% for the fail-safe group (p < 0.0001). Major complications mainly occurred due to non-surgical reasons such as pneumonia, heart failure, or renal dysfunction. The rates of anastomotic leakage (AL) were 11.8% (22/186) and 3.7% (n = 19/510) for the control and fail-safe groups, respectively (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

We report an effective multimodal fail-safe protocol for colorectal cancer during the pre-, peri-, and postoperative period. The fail-safe model showed less postoperative complications even for low rectal anastomosis. This approach can be adapted as a structured protocol during the perioperative care of patients for colorectal surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (Study ID: DRKS00023804 ).

Practical approach to linear endoscopic ultrasound examination of the rectum and anal canal

Standard endosonographic examination of the rectal area is usually performed with radial endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). However, in recent years, widespread availability of linear EUS for assessing various anatomical regions in the gastrointestinal tract has facilitated its use in the assessment of anorectal disorders. Currently, many rectal and anal diseases, including perianal abscesses, fistulae, polyps, and neoplastic lesions, can be well-visualized and evaluated with linear EUS. The aim of this review is to shed light on the anatomy and systematic examination of the anorectal region with linear EUS and clinical implications for different anorectal pathologies.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pelvic abscess: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

As an emerging minimally invasive technology, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been reported to treat pelvic abscess instead of surgical or image-guided percutaneous drainage (PCD) under certain conditions. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided drainage for patients with pelvic abscesses.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases (inception-March 2022). The main outcomes were technical success, clinical success, and complications. Comprehensive meta-analysis software was used to calculate the pooled event rate.

RESULTS

Twelve studies containing 272 patients were included. These pelvic abscesses most frequently developed after abdominal and pelvic surgery (n = 180, 66.2%), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 32, 11.8%), and other inflammatory conditions. Respectively, the pooled technical and clinical success rate was 100% and 88.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 83.8-92.2%, I² = 1.0%, p < 0.001]. After excluding an individual study, the pooled rate of complications changed from 11.5% (95% CI: 7.4-17.4%, I² = 38.8%, p < 0.001) to 8.2% (95% CI: 5.0-13.3%, I² = 0, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided drainage of the pelvic abscess was feasible, effective, and safe. Further randomized-controlled studies with large-sample sizes were required in the future.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pelvic abscess drainage: a report of 2 cases and literature review

BACKGROUND

Drainage is essential for source control of the infection in a pelvic abscess. The purpose of this study was to report 2 cases of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of the pelvic abscess and review the literature of different modalities of EUS-guided drainage of pelvic abscess.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 60-year-old male developed a pelvic abscess 1 month after laparoscopic complete tumor resection. An abdominal CT showed a mass shadow (about 7.1 cm × 5.1 cm) in the right pelvic region. Another case was an 85-year-old male who developed a pelvic abscess 3 days after recurrent tumor resection of multiple organs. The CT showed pelvic effusion and gas accumulation (approximately 6.5 cm × 4.2 cm), and the intestinal tube above the small intestinal anastomosis was dilated with effusion. A 19G-A puncture needle was used to puncture the abscess. An 8-mm cylindrical balloon was inserted, followed by a 10 Fr-3 cm double pigtail stent and an 8.5 Fr drainage tube. After EUS-guided drainage of pelvic abscess, the symptoms disappeared without recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided drainage is an effective and safe method for treating pelvic abscesses as long as the drainage modality is appropriately selected based on the etiology, size, and mucus viscosity of the abscess.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Transrectal Drainage of Perirectal Abscess in a Patient with Crohn Disease

Patient: Male, 58-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Perirectal abscess

Symptoms: Body aches • chills • intermittent pyrexia • myalgias • perirectal pain

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Rectal Endoscopic Ultrasound in Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is routinely utilized for evaluation of disorders of the lower gastrointestinal tract. In this review, we summarize the current status of rectal EUS in clinical practice and describe recent developments in diagnostic and therapeutic rectal EUS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent guidelines recommend rectal EUS for rectal cancer staging as a second line modality in cases where MRI is contraindicated. Forward-viewing echoendoscopes and through the scope EUS miniprobes allow for EUS imaging of lesions through the entire colon and for evaluation beyond stenoses or luminal narrowings. EUS can be used to assess perianal disease and drain pelvic abscess associated with IBD, along with newer applications currently under investigation. For rectal varices, EUS can confirm the diagnosis, assess the optimal site for banding, guide therapy placement with sclerotherapy and/or coils, and assess response to treatment by confirming absence of flow. Therapeutic rectal EUS is emerging as a promising modality for drainage of pelvic fluid collection drainage and fiducial placement for rectal or prostatic cancer. Drug delivery mechanisms and substances that may increase the scope of therapy with rectal EUS are in varying stages of development. Rectal EUS continues to be an important modality for evaluation of benign and malignant disorders of the lower gastrointestinal tract, although its use as a cancer staging modality has declined due to improvements in MRI technology. Various technologies to enhance ultrasound imaging and for therapeutics have been developed that have or may contribute to expanded indications for rectal EUS.