IMPACT OF RETROFLEXED VIEW ON THE DETECTION OF LESIONS IN THE PROXIMAL COLON: ASSESSMENT OF 393 PATIENTS IN A PRIVATE TERTIARY HOSPITAL.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening the colonoscopy. Although this is the test of choice, colonoscopy misses a significant number of lesions, mainly in the proximal colon. With the purpose of reducing the number of lesions missed, new techniques have been studied, amongst them, retroflexed view in the right side of the colon and the second direct forward view. OBJECTIVE: Assessing the safety of the retroview in the proximal colon (cecum and ascending colon), its impact on the detection of lesions in the proximal colon and its advantage over the double right forward view using adenoma detection rate and adenoma miss rate. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-three patients who came to Hospital Mater Dei to undergo colonoscopy from March to July 2017, prospectively. Out of these, 372 were included in the study based on the following exclusion criteria: being under 18 years of age, inadequate bowel preparations (Boston scale <7), history of colectomy, inflammatory bowel disease or polypoid diseases. First, an endoscopist inserted the colonoscope into the cecum and examine the cecum and the ascending colon with a forward view twice. In the third insertion into the cecum, retroflexed view was performed, cecal mucosa was examined until the hepatic flexure in search of polyps missed on forward view. All lesions found were resected and sent for histological analysis. RESULTS: In 334 (89.8%) patients, retroflexed view was performed successfully, 65.8% of failures were attributed to the loops of the device which prevented the maneuver. The direct view identified 175 polyps in the proximal colon in 102 people. Retroflexed view detected 26 polyps missed by the direct view in 24 (6.5%) people, with a missing rate of 12.9% in the test with only the forward view. Out of the 26 polyps found in retroview, 21 (80.76%) were adenomas, one of them with a high-grade dysplasia. Eleven patients had polyps seen only in retroflexed view. Retroview has increased the polyp detection rate from 27.41% to 31.72% and the adenoma detection rate from 21.77% to 25%. The adenoma miss rate by the double direct view was 12.8%. Without the retroview, one polyp in every 13.91 colonoscopies would be missed (number needed to treat - NNT=13.91). There was no adverse event. CONCLUSION: The retroflexed view technique in the proximal colon was shown to be safe, fast and feasible in most cases. It increased the adenoma detection rate and was shown to be advantageous in this study wit benefit beyond the double direct view.

Impacto da retroflexão na detecção de lesões de cólon proximal: avaliação de 393 pacientes em hospital privado terciário / Impact of retroflexed view on the detection of lesions in the proximal colon: assessment of 393 patients in a private tertiary hospital

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening the colonoscopy. Although this is the test of choice, colonoscopy misses a significant number of lesions, mainly in the proximal colon. With the purpose of reducing the number of lesions missed, new techniques have been studied, amongst them, retroflexed view in the right side of the colon and the second direct forward view. OBJECTIVE: Assessing the safety of the retroview in the proximal colon (cecum and ascending colon), its impact on the detection of lesions in the proximal colon and its advantage over the double right forward view using adenoma detection rate and adenoma miss rate. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-three patients who came to Hospital Mater Dei to undergo colonoscopy from March to July 2017, prospectively. Out of these, 372 were included in the study based on the following exclusion criteria: being under 18 years of age, inadequate bowel preparations (Boston scale <7), history of colectomy, inflammatory bowel disease or polypoid diseases. First, an endoscopist inserted the colonoscope into the cecum and examine the cecum and the ascending colon with a forward view twice. In the third insertion into the cecum, retroflexed view was performed, cecal mucosa was examined until the hepatic flexure in search of polyps missed on forward view. All lesions found were resected and sent for histological analysis. RESULTS: In 334 (89.8%) patients, retroflexed view was performed successfully, 65.8% of failures were attributed to the loops of the device which prevented the maneuver. The direct view identified 175 polyps in the proximal colon in 102 people. Retroflexed view detected 26 polyps missed by the direct view in 24 (6.5%) people, with a missing rate of 12.9% in the test with only the forward view. Out of the 26 polyps found in retroview, 21 (80.76%) were adenomas, one of them with a high-grade dysplasia. Eleven patients had polyps seen only in retroflexed view. Retroview has increased the polyp detection rate from 27.41% to 31.72% and the adenoma detection rate from 21.77% to 25%. The adenoma miss rate by the double direct view was 12.8%. Without the retroview, one polyp in every 13.91 colonoscopies would be missed (number needed to treat - NNT=13.91). There was no adverse event. CONCLUSION: The retroflexed view technique in the proximal colon was shown to be safe, fast and feasible in most cases. It increased the adenoma detection rate and was shown to be advantageous in this study wit benefit beyond the double direct view.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: O exame padrão ouro para rastreamento de câncer colorretal é a colonoscopia. Apesar de ser o exame de escolha, a colonoscopia perde um número não desprezível de lesões, principalmente no cólon proximal. Com a intenção de reduzir a perda de lesões, novas técnicas são estudadas, dentre elas, a retroflexão em cólon direito e a segunda visão frontal direta. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a segurança da retrovisão no cólon proximal (ceco e cólon ascendente), o seu impacto na detecção de lesões em cólon proximal e sua superioridade sobre a dupla visão frontal direta usando taxa de detecção de adenoma e taxa de adenoma perdido. MÉTODOS: Foram avaliados 393 pacientes de forma prospectiva que procuraram o Hospital Mater Dei para realizar colonoscopia entre março e julho de 2017. Desses, 372 foram incluídos baseados nos critérios de exclusão: menores de 18 anos, preparos intestinais inadequados (escala de Boston <7), com antecedente de colectomia, doença inflamatória intestinal ou síndromes polipoides. Primeiramente um endoscopista realizou a inserção do colonoscópio até o ceco e examinou o ceco e o cólon ascendente em visão frontal por duas vezes. Na terceira reinserção até o ceco era realizada a retroflexão e inspeção da mucosa do ceco até a flexura hepática em busca de pólipos perdidos à visão frontal. Todas lesões encontradas foram ressecadas e enviadas para análise histológica. RESULTADOS: Em 334 (89,8%) pacientes a retroflexão foi realizada com sucesso, 65,8% dos insucessos foram atribuídos a alças no aparelho que impediram a manobra. A visão direta identificou 175 pólipos no cólon proximal em 102 pessoas. A retroflexão detectou 26 pólipos perdidos pela visão direta em 24 (6,5%) pessoas, com uma taxa de perda de 12,9% no exame apenas em visão frontal. Dos 26 pólipos encontrados em retrovisão, 21 (80,76%) eram adenomas, um deles com displasia de alto grau. Onze pacientes tinham pólipos vistos apenas em retroflexão. A realização da retrovisão aumentou a taxa de detecção de pólipo de 27,41% para 31,72% e a taxa de detecção e adenomas de 21,77% para 25%. A taxa de adenoma perdido pela dupla visão direta foi de 12,8%. Se a retrovisão não fosse realizada, um pólipo a cada 13,91 colonoscopias seria perdido (NNT=13,91). Não houve nenhum evento adverso. CONCLUSÃO: A técnica de retroflexão em cólon proximal mostrou-se segura, rápida e factível na maioria dos casos. Ela aumentou a taxa de detecção de adenomas e mostrou-se soberana neste estudo com benfeitorias além da dupla visão direta.

II Brazilian consensus statement on endoscopic ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: At the time of its introduction in the early 80s, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) was indicated for diagnostic purposes. Recently, EUS has been employed to assist or to be the main platform of complex therapeutic interventions. METHODS: From a series of relevant new topics in the literature and based on the need to complement the I Brazilian consensus on EUS, twenty experienced endosonographers identified and reviewed the pertinent literature in databases. The quality of evidence, strength of recommendations, and level of consensus were graded and voted on. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for eight relevant topics: treatment of gastric varices, staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer, biliary drainage, tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions (SELs), treatment of pancreatic fluid collections, tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions, celiac neurolysis, and evaluation of the incidental pancreatic cysts. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high level of evidence for staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer; biopsy of SELs as the safest method; unilateral and bilateral injection techniques are equivalent for EUS-guided celiac neurolysis, and in patients with visible ganglia, celiac ganglia neurolysis appears to lead to better results. There is a moderate level of evidence for: yield of tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions is not influenced by the needle shape, gauge, or employed aspiration technique; EUS-guided and percutaneous biliary drainage present similar clinical success and adverse event rates; plastic and metallic stents are equivalent in the EUS-guided treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst. There is a low level of evidence in the routine use of EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices.

Gallbladder Papillary Neoplasia Associated With Intrahepatic Carcinoma and Pancreaticobiliary Malformation.

Papillary carcinoma is a rare tumor of the gallbladder. Papillary mucinous lesions of the intra- and extra-hepatic biliary tract (BT- IPMN) have been recognized. However the gallbladder is not included, except for the diffuse papillomatosis, where the sequence biliary papillomatosis to papillary carcinoma is proposed. We report a simultaneous case of gallbladder papillary neoplasia and intrahepatic duct carcinoma in situ associated with pancreaticobiliary maljunction (PBM). We proposed that double location, in our case, is more likely explained by a diffuse biliopancreatic tree disease leading to synchronous tumors arising in amenable duct. It was verified absence of continuity between gallbladder and intrahepatic bile duct site of involvement, absence of lymph node metastasis or venous involvement. This case report supports the concept of a proliferative and neoplastic process involving simultaneously the biliary tree and gallbladder associated with PBM.