1
|
Ichkhanian Y, Barawi M, Seoud T, Thakkar S, Kothari TH, Halabi ME, Ullah A, Edris W, Aepli P, Kowalski T, Shinn B, Shariaha RZ, Mahadev S, Mosko JD, Andrisani G, Di Matteo FM, Albrecht H, Giap AQ, Tang SJ, Naga YM, van Geenen E, Friedland S, Tharian B, Irani S, Ross AS, Jamil LH, Lew D, Nett AS, Farha J, Runge TM, Jovani M, Khashab MA. Endoscopic full-thickness resection of polyps involving the appendiceal orifice: a multicenter international experience. Endoscopy 2022; 54:16-24. [PMID: 33395714 DOI: 10.1055/a-1345-0044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Endoscopic resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice remains a challenge. We aimed to report outcomes with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for the resection of appendiceal lesions and identify factors associated with the occurrence of appendicitis. METHODS This was a retrospective study at 18 tertiary-care centers (USA 12, Canada 1, Europe 5) between November 2016 and August 2020. Consecutive patients who underwent resection of an appendiceal orifice lesion using the FTRD were included. The primary outcome was the rate of R0 resection in neoplastic lesions, defined as negative lateral and deep margins on post-resection histologic evaluation. Secondary outcomes included the rates of: technical success (en bloc resection), clinical success (technical success without need for further surgical intervention), post-resection appendicitis, and polyp recurrence. RESULTS 66 patients (32 women; mean age 64) underwent resection of colonic lesions involving the appendiceal orifice (mean [standard deviation] size, 14.5 (6.2) mm), with 40 (61 %) being deep, extending into the appendiceal lumen. Technical success was achieved in 59/66 patients (89 %), of which, 56 were found to be neoplastic lesions on post-resection pathology. Clinical success was achieved in 53/66 (80 %). R0 resection was achieved in 52/56 (93 %). Of the 58 patients in whom EFTR was completed who had no prior history of appendectomy, appendicitis was reported in 10 (17 %), with six (60 %) requiring surgical appendectomy. Follow-up colonoscopy was completed in 41 patients, with evidence of recurrence in five (12 %). CONCLUSIONS The FTRD is a promising non-surgical alternative for resecting appendiceal lesions, but appendicitis occurs in 1/6 cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yervant Ichkhanian
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.,Department of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | - Mohammed Barawi
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | - Talal Seoud
- Center for Advanced Endoscopy, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Shyam Thakkar
- Center for Advanced Endoscopy, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Truptesh H Kothari
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Maan El Halabi
- Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai West, New York, New York, USA
| | - Asad Ullah
- Department of Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Oncology and Interventional Endoscopy, Sana Klinikum, Offenbach, Germany
| | - Wedi Edris
- Department of Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Oncology and Interventional Endoscopy, Sana Klinikum, Offenbach, Germany
| | - Patrick Aepli
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzerne, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Kowalski
- Division of Gastroenterology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Brianna Shinn
- Division of Gastroenterology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Reem Z Shariaha
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York, Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA
| | - Srihari Mahadev
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York, Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jeffrey D Mosko
- The Center for Therapeutic Endoscopy and Endoscopic Oncology, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gianluca Andrisani
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Campus Bio-Medico, University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Heinz Albrecht
- Department of Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Andrew Q Giap
- Department of Gastroenterology, Kaiser Permanente, Anaheim, California, USA
| | - Shou-Jiang Tang
- Division of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA
| | - Yehia M Naga
- Division of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA
| | | | - Shai Friedland
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Benjamin Tharian
- Department of Gastroenterology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
| | - Shayan Irani
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Andrew S Ross
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Laith H Jamil
- Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Beaumont Health-Royal Oak, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA.,Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan, USA
| | - Daniel Lew
- Pancreatic and Biliary Diseases Program, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, California, USA
| | - Andrew S Nett
- Division of Gastroenterology, Sutter Health, Sacramento, California, USA
| | - Jad Farha
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Thomas M Runge
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.,Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Manol Jovani
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Mouen A Khashab
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abdalla S, Meillat H, Fillol C, Zuber K, Manceau G, Dubray V, Beyer-Berjot L, Lefevre JH, Selvy M, Benoist S, Micelli Lupinacci R. Ileocecal Valve Sparing Resection for the Treatment of Benign Cecal Polyps Unsuitable for Polypectomy. JSLS 2021; 25:JSLS.2021.00023. [PMID: 34316245 PMCID: PMC8280722 DOI: 10.4293/jsls.2021.00023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Not all benign-appearance polyps are amenable to endoscopic removal and colectomy is required in some cases. This study aims to compare the early outcomes of cecal wedge resection with ileocecal valve sparring versus standard right colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps referred for surgery. Methods: From Apr 2010 to Aug 2019, all consecutive patients who underwent cecal wedge resection or right colectomy in ten European centers for a presumed endoscopically benign polyp unsuitable for endoscopic resection were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was morbidity. Secondary endpoints were operative time and length of hospital stay. Results: One hundred and ten patients were included: 25 patients underwent cecal wedge resection and 85 a right colectomy. There were 56 men (51%) and 90% of the procedures were performed laparoscopically. 29 lesions were located at the appendix orifice (26.4%). Mortality was nil. There were no significant differences between both procedures for morbidity rate (20% versus 24.7%) or reoperation (4% versus 4.7%). Cecal wedge was related to shorter operative time (63 min versus 150 min, P = .008) and shorter hospital stay (5 days versus 6 days, P = .049). Only 1 patient had a salvage right colectomy after cecal wedge for a pTis adenoma. Conclusions: For benign-appearance cecal polyps unsuitable for endoscopic ablation, cecal wedge resection is safe and should be considered as an attractive alternative to right colectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Kevin Zuber
- Fondation Ophtalmologique Rothschild, Paris, France
| | | | - Vincent Dubray
- Université de Lille, Service de Chirurgie Digestive et Générale, Hôpital Claude Huriez, CHU de Lille, 59037 Lille, France
| | | | - Jérémie H Lefevre
- Sorbonne Université, Department of Digestive Surgery, AP-HP, Hôpital St Antoine, 75012 Paris, France
| | - Marie Selvy
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive, CHU Estaing, 63100 Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Stéphane Benoist
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive et Oncologique, CHU Bicêtre, 94270 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
| | - Renato Micelli Lupinacci
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive et Oncologique, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, 92104 Boulogne-Billancourt, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Endoscopic mucosal resection comprises the first-line treatment for large cecal polyps. With up to 14% of unresectable colonic polyps harboring malignancy, the management of endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps remains an oncologic right hemicolectomy, which can be associated with substantial postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVE This study compares the outcomes of patients with cecal polyps who underwent either endoscopic mucosal resection, a cecectomy, or a right hemicolectomy. DATA SOURCES Patients undergoing either endoscopic mucosal resection, partial cecectomy, or right hemicolectomy from 2008 to 2017 at a single tertiary care institution were selected. STUDY SELECTION This was a retrospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcomes measured were the rate of malignancy, complication rate, estimated blood loss, and hospital length of stay between surgical cohorts. RESULTS One hundred twenty-nine patients with cecal polyps were identified, of which 52 were referred for surgery. Nineteen underwent partial cecectomy and 33 (27.3%) underwent right hemicolectomy. Two patients undergoing cecectomy required conversion to hemicolectomy because the resected specimen did not contain the polyp. The 2 surgical cohorts did not differ significantly regarding age, sex, or ASA classification. Procedural complication rates were higher among those undergoing hemicolectomy compared with those undergoing cecectomy (37.1% versus 5.9%, p = 0.02). Estimated blood loss (50 vs 10 mL, p = 0.02), operative duration (98 vs 76 minutes, p = 0.009), and length of stay (4 vs 2 days, p < 0.001) were higher in patients undergoing hemicolectomy than in those undergoing cecectomy. No invasive malignancies were identified on final pathology within the cecectomy cohort. LIMITATIONS Single-institution data and retrospective design were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS In tertiary centers, the majority of large cecal polyps are benign and can be addressed by using endoscopic mucosal resection. When involvement of the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve precludes endoscopic treatment, surgical resection is the standard of care. In the subset of cases not involving the ileocecal valve and without preoperative evidence of malignancy, partial cecectomy spares the ileocecal valve and can offer reduced postoperative morbidity compared with a formal right hemicolectomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A674.
Collapse
|
6
|
Valli PV, Mertens J, Bauerfeind P. Safe and successful resection of difficult GI lesions using a novel single-step full-thickness resection device (FTRD ®). Surg Endosc 2017; 32:289-299. [PMID: 28664442 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5676-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2017] [Accepted: 06/19/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Classic endoscopic resection techniques (EMR and ESD) are limited to mucosal lesions. In the case of deeper growth into the gut wall and anatomic sites prone to perforation, the novel full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) opens a new dimension of possibilities for endoscopic resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS Sixty patients underwent endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) at our institution. Safety, learning curve, R0 resection rate, and clinical outcome were studied. RESULTS In 97% (58/60) of the interventions, the FTRD®-mounted endoscope reached the previously marked lesion and eFTR was performed (technical success). Full-thickness resection was achieved in 88% of the cases, with an R0 resection on histological examination in 79%. The clinical success rate based on follow-up histology was even higher (88%). Adverse events occurred in 7%. Appendicitis of the residual cecal appendix after eFTR of an adenoma arising in the appendix led to the only post-eFTR surgery (1/58, 2%). Minor bleeding at the eFTR site (2/58, 3%) and an eFTR performed accidently without proper prior deployment of the OTSC® (1/58, 2%) were successfully treated endoscopically. There was no secondary perforation or eFTR-associated mortality. CONCLUSIONS After specific training, eFTR is a feasible, safe, and promising all-in-one endoscopic resection technique. Our data show that eFTR allows complete resection of lesions affecting layers of the gut wall beneath the mucosa with a low risk of adverse events. However, our preliminary results need to be confirmed in larger, controlled studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P V Valli
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Zurich University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - J Mertens
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Zurich University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - P Bauerfeind
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Zurich University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|