ABSTRACT
We reviewed 7 patients with unsuccessful endoscopic hemostasis using covered self-expandable metal stent (CSEMS) placement for post-endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) bleeding. ES with a medium incision was performed in 6 and with a large incision in 1 patient. All but 1 of them (86%) showed delayed bleeding, warranting second endoscopic therapies followed by CSEMS placement 1–5 days after the initial ES. Subsequent CSEMS placement did not achieve complete hemostasis in any of the patients. Lateral-side incision lines (3 or 9 o’clock) had more frequent bleeding points (71%) than oral-side incision lines (11–12 o’clock; 29%). Additional endoscopic hemostatic procedures with hemostatic forceps, hypertonic saline epinephrine, or hemoclip achieved excellent hemostasis, resulting in complete hemostasis in all patients. These experiences provide an alert: CSEMS placement is not an ultimate treatment for post-ES bleeding, despite its effectiveness. The lateral-side of the incision line, as well as the oral-most side, should be carefully examined for bleeding points, even after the CSEMS placement.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#Although endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) has been reported as an alternative procedure for acute cholecystitis, it requires advanced endoscopic techniques. In terms of the certainty of achieving drainage, it remains a challenging procedure. The aim of the current study was to elucidate the practical efficacy of cholangioscopic assistance and to develop a new classification that could be used to evaluate the technical difficulty of ETGBD and provide a theoretical strategy to apply cholangioscopy appropriately for difficult ETGBD. @*Methods@#A total of 101 patients undergoing ETGBD were retrospectively studied. The characteristics and technical outcomes of ETGBD with conventional ETGBD (C-ETGBD) and SpyGlass DS-assisted ETGBD (SG-ETGBD) were evaluated. The characteristics and technique-dependent factors of unsuccessful C-ETGBD/SG-ETGBD were evaluated using the classification based on the steps of the procedure. The predictive factors of successful C-ETGBD/SG-ETGBD were examined. @*Results@#C-ETGBD was successful in 73 patients (72.3%). SG-ETGBD was successful in 11 of 13 patients (84.6%) who had C-ETGBD failure. Optional SG-ETGBD significantly increased the final success rate (94.1%) compared to C-ETGBD alone (p=0.003). ETGBD procedures could be classified into four steps. SG-assistance worked as an excellent troubleshooter in step 1 (failure to identify the cystic duct orifice) and step 2 (failure of guidewire advancement across the downturned angle of cystic duct takeoff). Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography could provide predictive information based on the classification. @*Conclusions@#Optional SG-ETGBD achieved a significantly higher success rate than C-ETGBD alone. Step classification is helpful for determining the technical difficulty of ETGBD and developing a theoretical strategy to apply cholangioscopy in a coordinated manner.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#Although endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) has been reported as an alternative procedure for acute cholecystitis, it requires advanced endoscopic techniques. In terms of the certainty of achieving drainage, it remains a challenging procedure. The aim of the current study was to elucidate the practical efficacy of cholangioscopic assistance and to develop a new classification that could be used to evaluate the technical difficulty of ETGBD and provide a theoretical strategy to apply cholangioscopy appropriately for difficult ETGBD. @*Methods@#A total of 101 patients undergoing ETGBD were retrospectively studied. The characteristics and technical outcomes of ETGBD with conventional ETGBD (C-ETGBD) and SpyGlass DS-assisted ETGBD (SG-ETGBD) were evaluated. The characteristics and technique-dependent factors of unsuccessful C-ETGBD/SG-ETGBD were evaluated using the classification based on the steps of the procedure. The predictive factors of successful C-ETGBD/SG-ETGBD were examined. @*Results@#C-ETGBD was successful in 73 patients (72.3%). SG-ETGBD was successful in 11 of 13 patients (84.6%) who had C-ETGBD failure. Optional SG-ETGBD significantly increased the final success rate (94.1%) compared to C-ETGBD alone (p=0.003). ETGBD procedures could be classified into four steps. SG-assistance worked as an excellent troubleshooter in step 1 (failure to identify the cystic duct orifice) and step 2 (failure of guidewire advancement across the downturned angle of cystic duct takeoff). Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography could provide predictive information based on the classification. @*Conclusions@#Optional SG-ETGBD achieved a significantly higher success rate than C-ETGBD alone. Step classification is helpful for determining the technical difficulty of ETGBD and developing a theoretical strategy to apply cholangioscopy in a coordinated manner.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Since oncological outcomes of transanal colorectal tube (TCT) placement, an endoscopic treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) with acute colorectal obstruction (ACO), remain unknown, this study analyzed long-term outcomes of TCT placement for stage II/III CRC with ACO. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrospectively reviewed from consecutive patients with distal stage II/III CRC who underwent surgery between January 2007 and December 2011 at two Japanese hospitals. One hospital conducted emergency surgery and the other performed TCT placement as the standard treatment for all CRCs with ACO. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to adjust baseline characteristics between two groups. RESULTS: Among 754 patients with distal stage II/III CRC, 680 did not have ACO (non-ACO group) and 74 had ACO (ACO group). The PS matching between both hospitals identified 234 pairs in the non-ACO group and 23 pairs in the ACO group. In the non-ACO group, the surgical quality was equivalent between the two institutions, with no significant differences in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). In the ACO group, the rate of primary resection/anastomosis was higher in the TCT group than in the surgery group (87.0% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were noted between the surgery and the TCT groups in OS (5-year OS, 61.9% vs. 51.5%; p=0.490) and DFS (5-year DFS, 45.9% vs. 38.3%; p=0.658). CONCLUSION: TCT placement can achieve similar long-term outcomes to emergency surgery, with a high rate of primary resection/anastomosis for distal stage II/III colon cancer with ACO.