Endoscopic submucosal dissection for duodenal tumors

Establishment and Validation of Risk Prediction Models for Postoperative Pain After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Clinical Study

Objective

Postoperative pain is a common complication in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) patients. This study aimed to develop and validate predictive models for postoperative pain associated ESD.

Methods

We retrospectively constructed a development cohort comprising 2162 patients who underwent ESD at our hospital between January 2015 and April 2022. The dataset was randomly divided into a training set (n = 1541) and a validation set (n = 621) in a 7:3 ratio. The bidirectional stepwise regression with Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to screen the predictors of post-ESD pain and construct three nomograms. We evaluated the model's discrimination, precision and clinical benefit through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) goodness-of-fit test and decision curve analysis (DCA) in internal validation.

Results

The proportion of patients developing postoperative pain in the training and testing data set was 25.6% and 28.5%, respectively. Three nomograms were constructed according to the final logistic regression models. The clinical prediction models for preoperative risks, preoperative and intraoperative risks, and perioperative risks consisted of seven, nine and six independent predictors, respectively, after bidirectional stepwise elimination. The models demonstrated the AUC of 0.794 (95% CI 0.768-0.820), 0.823 (95% CI 0.799-0.847) and 0.817 (95% CI 0.792-0.842) in the training cohort and 0.702 (95% CI 0.655-0.748), 0.705 (95% CI 0.659-0.752) and 0.747 (95% CI 0.703-0.790) in the validation cohort. The calibration plot, HL and DCA demonstrated the model's favorable clinical applicability.

Conclusion

We developed and validated three robust nomogram models, which might identify patients at risk of post-ESD pain and promising for clinical applications.

Clinical outcomes of the over-the-scope clip closure after duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Prophylactic closure with the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) has been reported to reduce postoperative adverse events (AEs). However, there are few evidences regarding AEs-associated factors and long-term outcomes of OTSCs.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2020, 139 consecutive patients with SNADETs who underwent ESD followed by OTSC closure in five institutions were extracted in this retrospective study. The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative AEs after prophylactic OTSC closure. The secondary endpoints were the complete closure rate, residual rate, and long-term AEs associated with residual OTSCs.

RESULTS

The rate of complete closure of the mucosal defect was 97.3% (142) in 146 SNADETs, which were completely resected by ESD. Postoperative AEs, including delayed bleeding, delayed perforation, and localized peritonitis, occurred in 6.2%, 3.4%, and 2.1% of patients, respectively; however, all of the cases improved without surgical treatment. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the use of two or more OTSCs was a significant independent risk factor for postoperative AEs (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-8.46; P = 0.046). The residual OTSC rate was 46.4% at 1 year postoperatively, and long-term AEs included duodenal erosions and ulcers associated with residual OTSCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic closure with OTSCs after duodenal ESD can provide acceptable short-and long-term outcomes for preventing postoperative AEs. However, multiple OTSCs were the independent risk factors of postoperative AEs due to the gaps between and near the OTSCs.

Efficacy and safety of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for non-ampullary superficial duodenal lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatments for non-ampullary superficial duodenal lesions (NASDLs) are yet to be standardized. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for NASDLs demands advanced techniques and a long procedure time to prevent perforation and bleeding. Precutting endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technical modification of ESD that overcomes the limitations of ESD. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of precutting EMR versus ESD for NASDLs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with NASDLs treated with either precutting EMR or ESD from January 2015 to March 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients with NASDLs were analyzed, with 44 patients in the precutting EMR group and 46 patients in the ESD group. The endoscopic procedure achieved satisfactory outcomes in both groups, with en block resection rate of 100.0 %. The R0 resection rates in the precutting EMR and ESD groups were 95.5 % and 93.5 %, respectively. No delayed perforation occurred postoperatively in either group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, gender, lesion location, layer of lesion origin, macroscopic type, and lesion size. The procedure time was significantly shorter in the precutting EMR group than in the ESD group (22.9 ± 7.1 min vs 36.0 ± 10.6 min, p<0.001). The intraoperative perforation rate was significantly lower in the precutting EMR group compared to ESD group (4.5% vs 19.6 %, p = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

Precutting EMR is comparable to ESD for NASDLs, demonstrating a lower intraoperative perforation rate and shorter procedure time compared to ESD.

Safety of Duodenal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumor: A Single-Center Study in the United States

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is associated with a high rate of en bloc resection and low rate of recurrence. However, in the United States, SNADETs are predominantly managed using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or surgery because the feasibility and safety of duodenal ESD have not yet been established. In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of duodenal ESD for SNADETs. This single-center retrospective study reviewed the data of patients who underwent ESD for SNADETs between June 2018 and August 2023. Baseline patient characteristics, histopathology of the resected lesions, adverse events, and recurrence rates were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were en bloc resection, complications, and recurrence rate. Thirty ESD procedures were performed on 24 patients. All 30 lesions were adenomas, with no cancerous lesions. The en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rates were both 53%. There were no cases of procedure-associated perforation. Post-ESD bleeding was observed in six cases. No ESD-related mortality was observed. The recurrence rate was 14% in 1 year follow up, and 28% the during all follow-up period. ESD is a safe option for SNADET in the United States; however further comparative studies are necessary to determine the optimal procedure for North American populations.

Pancreas-sparing partial duodenectomy as an alternative to emergency pancreaticoduodenectomy for a major duodenal perforation: a case report

A 71-year-old woman underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection for early duodenal cancer at the second portion of the duodenum and developed acute peritonitis due to delayed duodenal perforation. Emergency laparotomy was performed. A huge perforation formed at the descending duodenum without ampulla involvement. Pancreas-sparing partial duodenectomy (PPD) with gastrojejunostomy was performed (250 min operative time) with 50 mL of intraoperative blood loss. She required intensive care for 3 days and was discharged on postoperative day 21 with no severe complications. Emergency treatment for a major duodenal injury or perforation remains challenging because of high morbidity and mortality. An appropriate treatment should be considered according to the nature of the defect. Although PPD is an acceptable procedure for patients with a duodenal neoplasm, its use in emergency surgery is rarely reported. PPD is more reliable than primary repair or anastomosis using a jejunal wall, and less invasive than pancreaticoduodenectomy, for emergency treatment. We performed PPD in this patient because the duodenal perforation was too large to reconstruct and did not involve the ampulla. PPD can be a safe and feasible alternative surgical procedure to pancreaticoduodenectomy for a major duodenal perforation, especially in patients with a duodenal perforation that does not involve the ampulla.

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors: A review

The surface of the small bowel mucosa is covered more than any other section of the digestive canal; however, the overall prevalence of small bowel tumors of the whole gastrointestinal tract is evidently low. Owing to the improvement in endoscopic techniques, the prevalence of small bowel tumors has increased across multiple countries, which is mainly due to an increase in duodenal tumors. Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) are defined as tumors originating from the non-ampullary region in the duodenum that share similarities and discrepancies with their gastric and colorectal counterparts in the pathogenesis and clinicopathologic characteristics. To date, white light endoscopy (WLE) remains the cornerstone of endoscopic diagnosis for SNADETs. Besides, narrow-band imaging (NBI) techniques and magnifying endoscopy (ME) have been widely used in the clinic and endorsed by multiple guidelines and consensuses for SNADETs' evaluation. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), endocytoscopy (ECS), and artificial intelligence (AI) are also up-and-coming methods, showing an exceptional value in the diagnosis of SNADETs. Similar to the endoscopic treatment for colorectal polyps, the choices for SNADETs mainly include cold snare polypectomy (CSP), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS). However, owing to the narrow lumen, rich vascularity, weak muscle layer, abundant Brunner's gland, and the hardship of endoscope control, the duodenum ranks as one of the most dangerous operating areas in the digestive tract. Therefore, endoscopists must anticipate the difficulties in endoscopic maneuverability, remain aware of the increased risk of complications, and then select the appropriate treatment according to the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Underwater Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Duodenal underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been suggested as a feasible treatment option for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, its efficacy and safety have not been fully established yet. Thus, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of UEMR as compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) in the treatment of SNADETs.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing CEMR and UEMR for the resection of SNADET were included. Outcomes included en-bloc and complete resection rates, adverse events, and procedure time.

RESULTS

A total of six studies with 2454 lesions were included in the quantitative synthesis. En-bloc and complete resection rates were not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (OR for en-bloc resection: 0.997 [95% CI 0.439-2.266]; OR for complete resection: 0.960 [95% CI 0.628-1.468]). There was no significant risk difference for perforation (risk difference: - 0.002; 95% CI - 0.009 to 0.005) or delayed bleeding (risk difference: - 0.001; 95% CI - 0.014 to 0.011). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the UEMR (standardized mean difference: - 1.294; 95% CI - 2.461 to - 0.127). The risk of recurrence was not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (risk difference: 0.001; 95% CI - 0.041 to 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Although our results did not show any superiority of UEMR over CEMR in the treatment of SNADETs, UEMR showed equivalent efficacy and safety as compared with CEMR and was associated with a shorter procedure time.

Survival comparison between endoscopic and surgical resection for non-ampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumor (1-2 cm)

The treatment plan for non-ampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (d-NETs) with diameters 1-2 cm remains controversial. We therefore aimed to compare the prognostic effects of endoscopic treatment and surgical resection on non-ampullary d-NETs with 1-2 cm diameters. A total of 373 eligible patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to match patients 1:1 according to clinicopathological characteristics. Disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Before PSM, there was no significant difference in DSS or OS (all P > 0.05), but the T stage, N stage, and TNM stage were significantly different between the two surgical methods (all P < 0.05). After 1:1 PSM, the differences in clinicopathological characteristics were significantly reduced (all P > 0.05). Survival analysis showed that tumor grade was correlated with DSS and that age was correlated with OS (all P < 0.05); however, the surgical method and other clinicopathological characteristics were not correlated with prognosis (all P > 0.05). Subgroup survival analysis of patients with T2N0M0 disease and tumors invading the lamina propria or submucosa showed that the 5-year DSS and OS rates were not significantly different according to the surgical approach (all P > 0.05). The surgical approach has no significant effect on the prognosis of patients with non-ampullary d-NETs with 1-2 cm diameters, especially those with T2N0M0 disease. This suggests that endoscopic treatment may be a preferred option for these patients.

Minimally invasive management of large duodenal lipoma: endoscopic submucosal dissection

Objective

This study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of large duodenal lipomas (DLs) of ≥2 cm between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR).

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who underwent endoscopic resection of large DLs from June 2017 to March 2021 at our hospital. Clinicopathologic features, clinical outcomes, and follow-up endoscopy findings were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

Twenty-three patients (12 men) with a mean age of 57.4 years were included. The median tumor size was 28.4 ± 13.3 mm. ESD was performed in 19 patients, and EFTR was performed in 4. Complete resection was achieved in 21 patients. The operative time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the ESD than EFTR group. Four patients in the EFTR group developed a fever; no other adverse events occurred. No patients required surgical intervention. During the average follow-up of 21.1 months, no residual tumor, recurrence, or metastasis was observed.

Conclusion

Both ESD and EFTR provide minimally invasive, localized treatment of selected DLs. ESD might have some advantages in resecting large DLs in terms of procedure time and hospitalization.

Prevention and Management of Complications and Education in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered superior to endoscopic mucosal resection as an endoscopic resection because of its higher en bloc resection rate, but it is more difficult to perform. As ESD techniques have become more common, and the range of treatment by ESD has expanded, the number of possible complications has also increased, and endoscopists need to manage them. In this report, we will review the management of critical complications, such as hemorrhage, perforation, and stenosis, and we will also discuss educational methods for acquiring and improving ESD skills.

Current status of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors

Though superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) have been traditionally considered rare, there is a growing detection under the development and widespread of endoscopic techniques in recent times. Many case studies have revealed early manifestations of lesions through advanced endoscopic technology, however, because of the low incidence of duodenal tumors and challenges in diagnosing, the preoperative diagnosis criteria have not been established so far. In spite of this, recently the increasing detection rate of early duodenal epithelial lesions enhances the demand for minimally invasive treatment as well. The most suitable therapeutic endoscopic modality to remove duodenal lesions should be selected according to the size, location and histological invasive depth of duodenal lesions. Nevertheless, due to the special anatomical structure of the duodenum, the incidence of complications is much higher than in any other part of the digestive tract. To prevent these adverse events prophylactically, a few novel strategies have been applied effectively after resection. This review describes the current status of preoperative endoscopic diagnosis and endoscopic resection approaches, as well as countermeasures for avoiding procedure-related complications.

Endoscopic management of superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection as progression to invasive carcinoma is highly likely.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends performance of a colonoscopy, if that has not yet been done, in cases of duodenal adenoma.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends the use of the cap-assisted method when the location of the minor and/or major papilla and their relationship to a duodenal adenoma is not clearly established during forward-viewing endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends the routine use of a side-viewing endoscope when a laterally spreading adenoma with extension to the minor and/or major papilla is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests cold snare polypectomy for small (< 6 mm in size) nonmalignant duodenal adenomas.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the first-line endoscopic resection technique for nonmalignant large nonampullary duodenal adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for duodenal adenomas is an effective resection technique only in expert hands.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends using techniques that minimize adverse events such as immediate or delayed bleeding or perforation. These may include piecemeal resection, defect closure techniques, noncontact hemostasis, and other emerging techniques, and these should be considered on a case-by-case basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends endoscopic surveillance 3 months after the index treatment. In cases of no recurrence, a further follow-up endoscopy should be done 1 year later. Thereafter, surveillance intervals should be adapted to the lesion site, en bloc resection status, and initial histological result. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Risk factors of delayed bleeding after endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors and prevention by over-the-scope and conventional clipping

OBJECTIVES

This study was aimed to reveal risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic resection (ER) of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) and at exploring measures to prevent this complication.

METHODS

A total of 235 consecutive patients with 249 SNADETs who had undergone ER were enrolled in this study. They were divided into two groups: OTSC group, consisting of the initial 114 cases in which the defects were closed only using OTSCs; and OTSC-c group, consisting of the later 135 cases in which conventional clips were additionally used to cover the inverted submucosa after post-procedure defect closure using OTSCs. The therapeutic outcomes were then compared between the OTSC and OTSC-c groups.

RESULTS

All lesions were successfully resected en-bloc, and the R0 resection rate was 92.4%. The complete defect closure rate was 90.0% and no delayed perforation occurred when successful defect closure was achieved. The rate of delayed bleeding was significantly higher in the OTSC group than in OTSC-c group (11.4% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that tumor location distal to the ampulla (OR 10.0; 95% CI 1.24-81.0, P = 0.03) and use of a DOAC (OR 8.83; 95% CI 1.13-68.7, P = 0.04) were significant independent predictors of delayed bleeding. Propensity score-matching analysis revealed that additional use of conventional clips was associated with a significantly reduced risk of delayed bleeding (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Additional use of conventional clips after prophylactic defect closure using OTSCs appears to be useful to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding after ER of SNADETs. UMIN Clinical Trials (No. 000035478).

Endoscopic Management of Diminutive Duodenal Neuroendocrine Tumors

INTRODUCTION

Although duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (dNETs) are rare, the incidence, particularly for lesions ≤ 10 mm, continues to rise with the advent of widely available, high-quality endoscopy. Given their rarity and controversy regarding prognostication factors, limited guidelines exist for resection of well-differentiated, ≤ 20-mm dNETs. Importantly, lesions ≤ 10 mm in a duodenal location are ideal for consideration of endoscopic management given both morbidity and technical challenges associated with surgery and their accessibility to a wide range of endoscopic techniques.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the endoscopic resection of dNETs <10 mm in a case series and literature review.

METHODS

We performed a literature review and present a series of nine cases to demonstrate the viability of endoscopic resection for diminutive dNETs as an alternative to surgery.

RESULTS

Our case series included nine well-differentiated diminutive dNETs in seven patients, the majority resected using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), 67%, and there was no residual disease at follow-up. The literature review of 178 patients demonstrated that EMR was the most used method of resection of diminutive dNETs, 81%, compared to endoscopic submucosal dissection, 19%. The most common complication was intraoperative bleeding in 9.55%, and only 2.25% of patients had recurrence.

CONCLUSION

While complications may arise with endoscopic resection of diminutive dNETs, they are usually managed endoscopically and compare favorably with the literature on surgical complication rates and typically result in shorter hospitalizations.

The Use of Endoscopic Clipping in Preventing Delayed Complications after Endoscopic Resection for Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic resection (ER) has recently been accepted as the standard treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors (SNADTs). However, the procedure can cause adverse events such as perforation and bleeding. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in the prevention of delayed complications.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the medical records of patients who underwent ER for SNADT from 3 centers was performed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the immediate clipping group (ICG) and the no clipping group (NCG). Various baseline characteristics and factors associated with the appearance of delayed complications, such as size of the lesion, tumor location, histologic type, and co-morbidities, were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 99 lesions from 99 patients were included in this study. Fifty-two patients were allocated into ICG and 47 patients were allocated into NCG. Delayed bleeding occurred in 1 patient from ICG and in 8 patients from NCG. Delayed perforation occurred in 1 patient from ICG and in 3 patients from NCG. There were no procedure-related deaths in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of endoscopic clipping seemed to reduce the risk of developing delayed complications, further studies using a prospective design is required.

[Endoscopic diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of polyps of the upper gastrointestinal tract]

Polyps occur significantly less frequently in the upper gastrointestinal tract compared to the lower gastrointestinal tract. They are usually incidental findings at esophagogastroduodenoscopy. A distinction is made between epithelial lesions and subepithelial tumors. Endoscopic screening is not recommended in Germany (exception: hereditary risk groups). Polyps are sometimes symptomatic, generally in the case of advanced tumor size. In this case, or in the case of potential for malignant transformation, resection is necessary and can usually be performed endoscopically. Surgical resections are rarely necessary. Epithelial lesions are removed by means of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). For subepithelial tumors, advanced procedures such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER), or endoscopic full-thickness resection are available. These procedures should primarily be performed at centers with appropriate expertise. Endoscopic follow-up is primarily determined by the tumor entity and the resection status.

Efficacy and safety of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) are increasingly found during upper endoscopy. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for the endoscopic resection of SNADET. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this technique.

Methods:

We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases from inception to August 2019, which included Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, Ovid MEDLINE^®, and In-Process and other non-indexed citations. The primary outcome assessed was the pooled clinical success rate of UEMR. Secondary outcomes included rate of en bloc resection, pooled rate of high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma (HGIC), and pooled rate of adverse events. Meta-regression analysis was performed based on tumor size.

Results:

A total of 8 study arms were included for analysis with UEMR performed in a total of 258 lesions. The pooled clinical success rate was 89.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.4-94.1). En-bloc removal was achieved in 84.6% of treated lesions (95%CI 75.5-90.7). The pooled rate of HGIC was 24.7% (95%CI 10.3-48.3). The pooled rate of adverse events was 6.9% (95%CI 2.5-17.9). This included 10 total adverse events, with the majority being self-limited delayed bleeding. There were no duodenal perforations.

Conclusions:

UEMR for endoscopic resection of SNADET has a high efficacy. In addition, this technique has a high rate of en bloc resection and an acceptable adverse event profile. Given these data, UEMR should be considered as a method for endoscopic resection of SNADET.

Management of spontaneous and iatrogenic perforations, leaks and fistulae of the upper gastrointestinal tract

Upper gastrointestinal perforations, leaks and fistulae are relatively common occurrences with a growing number of these complications occuring as a result of therapeutic advancement and adoption of newer and bolder endoscopic therapies. Historically, these were predominantly managed surgically; however, owing to high morbidity and mortality associated with surgical repair, endoscopic options are preferable. Over the past decade, vast expansion in the endoscopic armamentarium for the management of perforations, leaks and fistulae has led to endoscopic management now being the first-line treatment. Here, we will review the endoscopic modalities including through-the-scope clips, over-the-scope clips, stents, vacuum therapy, endoscopic sutures and sealants. In addition, we will discuss nonendoscopic approach to management including early recognition of perforations, ways to reduce septic complications and format algorithms to guide therapy for different scenarios. However, it is important to stress that there is a lack of high-quality randomised studies to clearly guide management of such complications, resulting in a wide variation of approaches in management by specialists. Each case requires some degree of individualisation due to the potential array of problems encountered and patient-specific co-morbidities. In the future, more robust studies are clearly required to better guide specialist management.

Clinical outcomes of iatrogenic upper gastrointestinal endoscopic perforation: a 10-year study

Background

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic examination is a relatively safe procedure; however, all endoscopic procedures are invasive and are associated with a risk of iatrogenic perforation. To evaluate clinical outcomes of iatrogenic upper gastrointestinal endoscopic perforation. Factors associated with surgical management or mortality were analyzed.

Methods

Between November 2008 and November 2018, the medical records of 149,792 upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures were evaluated. The mechanisms of perforations were categorized as electrocoagulation-induced or blunt trauma-induced injuries. The incidence and clinical outcomes of iatrogenic perforations based on the types of procedures performed were evaluated.

Results

Iatrogenic endoscopic perforations occurred in 28 cases (0.019%). Iatrogenic perforation-related mortality occurred in 3 patients. The iatrogenic perforation rate based on the types of procedures performed was as follows: diagnostic endoscopy = 0.002%, duodenal endoscopic mucosal resection = 0.9%, esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection = 10.7%, gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection = 0.2%, endoscopic self-expandable metal stent insertion for malignant esophageal obstruction = 0.1%, duodenoscope-induced injury = 0.02%, endoscopic sphincterotomy = 0.08%, and ampullectomy = 6.8%. All electrocoagulation-induced perforations (n = 21) were managed successfully (15 cases of endoscopic closure, 5 cases treated conservatively, and 1 case treated surgically). Three patients died among those with blunt trauma-induced perforations (n = 7). The factors associated with surgical management or mortality were old age, poor performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score ≥ 1), advanced malignancy, and blunt trauma.

Conclusions

Most cases of electrocoagulation-induced iatrogenic perforations can be treated using endoscopic clips. If endoscopic closure fails for blunt trauma-induced perforations, prompt surgical management is mandatory.

ESD versus EMR in non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as an option for treatment of esophageal, gastric and colorectal lesions. However, there is no consensus on the role of ESD in duodenal tumors.

METHODS

 This systematic review and meta-analysis compared ESD and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in sporadic non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors (NASDTs), including local experience. We conducted a search in PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane library up to August 2017 to identify studies that compared both techniques reporting at least one main outcome (en-bloc/complete resection, local recurrence). Pooled outcomes were calculated under fixed and random-effect models. Subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

 A total of 753 patients presenting with 784 NASDTs (242 ESD, 542 EMR) in 14 studies were included. Tumor size (MD: 5.88, [CI95 %: 2.15, 9.62], P  = 0.002, I 2  = 79 %) and procedure time (MD: 65.65, [CI95 %: 40.39, 90.92], P  < 0.00001, I 2  = 88 %) were greater in the ESD group. En-bloc resection rate was significantly higher in Asian studies (OR: 2.16 [CI95 %: 1.15, 4.08], P  = 0.02, I 2 : 46 %). ESD provided a higher complete resection rate (OR: 1.63 [I95 %: 1.06, 2.50], P  = 0.03, I 2 : 59 %), but there was no risk difference in the risk of local recurrence (RD: - 0.03 [CI95 %: - 0.07, 0.01], P  = 0.15, I 2 : 0 %) or delayed bleeding. ESD was associated with an increased number of intraoperative perforations [RD: 0.12 (CI95 %: 0.04, 0.20), P  = 0.002, I 2 : 56 %] and emergency surgery for delayed perforations. The inclusion of eligible studies was limited to retrospective series with inequalities in comparative groups.

CONCLUSIONS

 Duodenal ESD for NASDTs may achieve higher en-bloc and complete resections at the expense of a greater perforation rate compared to EMR. The impact on local recurrence remains uncertain.

Clinical outcomes of ligation-assisted endoscopic resection for duodenal neuroendocrine tumors

Duodenal carcinoid tumors, a type of neuroendocrine tumors, are relatively rare and are usually found incidentally during endoscopy. Small duodenal carcinoid tumors (≤10-20 mm), embedded in the submucosa, can be resected endoscopically because of the low risk of metastasis. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ligation-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for the treatment of small duodenal carcinoid tumors. The clinical outcomes of the endoscopic procedures were also evaluated.Between November 2008 and November 2017, a total of 15 duodenal carcinoid tumors embedded in the submucosa were resected using EMR. Two types of EMR (conventional EMR and ligation-assisted EMR) were performed according to tumor morphology (narrow-based and broad-based).The mean tumor size was 6.6 ± 3.9 mm and the mean procedure time was 11.0 ± 11.2 minutes. Most of the lesions (80.0%) were located in the duodenal 1st portion. Broad-based tumors were more common than narrow-based tumors (66.7% vs 33.3%). All broad-based tumors were resected successfully using ligation-assisted EMR. Although en-bloc resection and complete resection rates were higher in ligation-assisted EMR than in conventional EMR ([100% vs 87.5%], and [85.7% vs 62.5%], respectively), the difference was not significant (P = .333 and P = .310, respectively). Moreover, there was no evidence of local or distant metastasis during the follow-up (26.1 ± 20.7 months).Ligation-assisted EMR showed a higher complete resection rate than conventional EMR. Ligation-assisted EMR may be an optimal treatment option for duodenal carcinoid tumors with a broad base.

Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Cooperative Surgery Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for the Treatment of Low-Risk Tumors of the Duodenum

BACKGROUND

There have been no comparative studies of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) for patients with duodenal tumors regarding surgical outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and feasibility of short-term surgical outcomes of ESD and LECS for patients with low-risk tumors of the duodenum.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study of 68 consecutive patients with low-risk tumors of the duodenum who received surgical treatments. ESD (n = 50) was performed between 2000 and 2013 and LECS (n = 18) was performed between 2014 and 2017.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of perioperative complications was significantly higher in the ESD group (28%) than in the LECS group (0%) (P = 0.014). In the ESD group, eight patients with intraoperative perforation of duodenum (16%) were repaired with metal clips. Postoperative duodenal hemorrhage occurred in three patients (6%). Postoperative duodenal stricture requiring endoscopically guided balloon dilation was observed in two patients (4%). Postoperative bile leakage was found in one patient (2%). The size of resected lesion was significantly larger in the LECS group (26.5 mm) than in the ESD group (14.5 mm) (P = 0.003). In LECS group, all 18 patients underwent curative resection; however, the curative resection rate was 52% in ESD group (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LECS for patients with low-risk tumors of the duodenum is a safe, feasible, and ideal alternative to ESD with regard to short-term surgical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000021200 ( http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ ).