Endoscopic submucosal dissection of scar-embedded rectal polyps: a prospective study (Esd in scar-embedded rectal polyps).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was developed for en bloc resection of superficial neoplasm of the digestive tract. We evaluated feasibility and safety of ESD, as a salvage therapy of large refractory rectal polyps, in a tertiary care setting. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled in the present study and treated by ESD 11 consecutive patients with rectal polyps (median diameter 3.5 cm; range 2-5 cm), who had previously undergone several attempts of endoscopic resection and not suitable for further standard endoscopic treatment. The ESD was carried out with a standard needle knife. Follow up examinations were scheduled at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: We achieved apparently complete resection of polyps in 10/11 patients. In one patient ESD was interrupted and the pathology of the resected fragment showed deep submucosal infiltration; this patient underwent surgery. Deep and lateral margins were shown to be free of neoplasm (radical resection) in six out of 11 patients. However all the 10 patients with apparently complete resection were free of recurrence after a mean follow up of 19.2 months (12-24). A T1 adenocarcinoma was radically resected by ESD, with no recurrence. We recorded 2 cases of subcutaneous emphysema, both treated conservatively. CONCLUSIONS: Radical resection is difficult to be achieved by ESD in patients with rectal scar-embedded polyps. Nevertheless ESD may be proposed as a definitive treatment of selected patients with refractory polyps, avoiding surgery in the majority of them.

A randomized clinical trial comparing 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The study aimed to investigate whether the 25G needle is superior to the 22G needle when used in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was a single-center randomized clinical trial. The setting was a tertiary referral hospital, where EUS-FNA of solid lesions was assisted by an on-site cytopathologist, who was blinded to the needle size. The main end point was the number of passes performed to obtain adequate samples. Crossover to the other type of needle was allowed after five passes, or when the gastroenterologist experienced difficulties in puncturing the lesions. RESULTS: A total of 129 solid lesions were randomized and data regarding 127 lesions were analyzed. The mean number of passes was 3.7 (± 1.9) in the 22G needle group and 3.8 (± 2) in the 25G needle groups (difference of means: 0.1; 95% CI: -0.59 to 0.79). Fifty-eight of 63 (92.1%) and 60/64 samples (93.7%) in the 22G and 25G needle groups respectively were adequate (difference: -1.6%; 95%CI: -12.1% to 8.9%). Crossover to the other type of needle was performed in 11/63 (17.5%) and in 12/64 (18.7%) lesions in the two groups respectively (difference: -1.2%; 95%CI: -16.2% to 13.8%). A crossover to the 25G needle was successfully performed in four masses in the uncinate process; these lesions were difficult to puncture using the 22G needle. CONCLUSIONS: Our study failed to demonstrate that the 25G is more effective than the 22G needle in EUS-FNA of solid lesions. However, targeting of lesions in the distal duodenum may be simplified by using the 25G needle.