1.White Bile in Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Poor Prognostic Marker
Clinical Endoscopy 2018;51(1):109-110
No abstract available.
Bile
2.Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis using Two Gallbladder Stents (Dual Gallbladder Stenting)
Zain A SOBANI ; Sergio A. SÁNCHEZ-LUNA ; Tarun RUSTAGI
Clinical Endoscopy 2021;54(6):899-902
Background/Aims:
Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETPGBD) is gaining popularity for the management of acute cholecystitis (AC) in high-risk patients. However, the stents placed during the procedure are not immune to obstruction. Here we describe a novel technique of stenting with two transpapillary stents and evaluate its technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy in AC.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing ETPGBD using dual stents for AC at our institution between November 1, 2017 and August 31, 2020 was conducted. We abstracted patient data to evaluate technical and clinical success, adverse events, and long-term outcomes. Two stents were placed either during the index procedure or during an interval procedure performed 4–6 weeks after the index procedure.
Results:
A total of 21 patients underwent ETPGBD with dual stenting (57.14% male, mean age: 62.14±17.21 years). The median interval between the placement of the first and the second stents was 37 days (range: 0–226 days). Technical and clinical success rates were 100%, with a recurrence rate of 4.76% (n=1) and adverse event rate of 9.52% (n=2) during a mean follow-up period of 471.74±345.64 days (median: 341 days, range: 55–1084 days).
Conclusions
ETPGBD with dual gallbladder stenting is a safe and effective technique for long-term gallbladder drainage in non-surgical candidates. Larger controlled studies are needed to validate our findings for the widespread implementation of this technique.
3.Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 10 mm or Larger Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Rajat GARG ; Amandeep SINGH ; Manik AGGARWAL ; Jaideep BHALLA ; Babu P. MOHAN ; Carol BURKE ; Tarun RUSTAGI ; Prabhleen CHAHAL
Clinical Endoscopy 2021;54(3):379-389
Background/Aims:
Recent studies have reported the favorable outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of UEMR for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm.
Methods:
We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) to identify studies reporting the outcomes of UEMR for ≥10 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. The assessed outcomes were recurrence rate on the first follow-up, en bloc resection, incomplete resection, and adverse events after UEMR.
Results:
A total of 1276 polyps from 16 articles were included in our study. The recurrence rate was 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3–12) and 5.9% (95% CI, 3.6–9.4) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 and ≥20 mm, respectively. For nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm, the en bloc resection, R0 resection, and incomplete resection rates were 57.7% (95% CI, 42.4–71.6), 58.9% (95% CI, 42.4–73.6), and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8–2.6), respectively. The rates of pooled adverse events, intraprocedural bleeding, and delayed bleeding were 7.0%, 5.4%, and 2.9%, respectively. The rate of perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome was 0.8%.
Conclusions
Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that UEMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm is safe and effective with a low rate of recurrence.
4.Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 10 mm or Larger Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Rajat GARG ; Amandeep SINGH ; Manik AGGARWAL ; Jaideep BHALLA ; Babu P. MOHAN ; Carol BURKE ; Tarun RUSTAGI ; Prabhleen CHAHAL
Clinical Endoscopy 2021;54(3):379-389
Background/Aims:
Recent studies have reported the favorable outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of UEMR for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm.
Methods:
We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) to identify studies reporting the outcomes of UEMR for ≥10 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. The assessed outcomes were recurrence rate on the first follow-up, en bloc resection, incomplete resection, and adverse events after UEMR.
Results:
A total of 1276 polyps from 16 articles were included in our study. The recurrence rate was 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3–12) and 5.9% (95% CI, 3.6–9.4) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 and ≥20 mm, respectively. For nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm, the en bloc resection, R0 resection, and incomplete resection rates were 57.7% (95% CI, 42.4–71.6), 58.9% (95% CI, 42.4–73.6), and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8–2.6), respectively. The rates of pooled adverse events, intraprocedural bleeding, and delayed bleeding were 7.0%, 5.4%, and 2.9%, respectively. The rate of perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome was 0.8%.
Conclusions
Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that UEMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm is safe and effective with a low rate of recurrence.