1.Laser-cut-type versus braided-type covered self-expandable metallic stents for distal biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic carcinoma: a retrospective comparative cohort study
Koh KITAGAWA ; Akira MITORO ; Takahiro OZUTSUMI ; Masanori FURUKAWA ; Yukihisa FUJINAGA ; Kenichiro SEKI ; Norihisa NISHIMURA ; Yasuhiko SAWADA ; Kosuke KAJI ; Hideto KAWARATANI ; Hiroaki TAKAYA ; Kei MORIYA ; Tadashi NAMISAKI ; Takemi AKAHANE ; Hitoshi YOSHIJI
Clinical Endoscopy 2022;55(3):434-442
Background/Aims:
Covered self-expandable metallic stents (CMSs) are widely used for malignant distal biliary obstructions (MDBOs) caused by pancreatic carcinoma. This study compared the efficacy and safety of the laser-cut-type and braided-type CMSs.
Methods:
To palliate MDBOs caused by pancreatic carcinoma, the laser-cut-type CMSs was used from April 2014 to March 2017, and the braided-type CMSs was used from April 2017 to March 2019. The tested self-expandable metallic stents were equipped with different anti-migration systems.
Results:
In total, 47 patients received CMSs for MDBOs (24 laser-cut type, 23 braided-type). The time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO) was significantly longer in the braided-type CMSs (p=0.0008), and the median time to stent dysfunction or patient death was 141 and 265 days in the laser-cut-type CMSs and braided-type CMSs, respectively (p=0.0023). Stent migration was the major cause of stent dysfunction in both groups, which occurred in 37.5% of the laser-cut-type CMSs and 13.0% of the braidedtype CMSs. There were no differences in the survival duration between the groups.
Conclusions
The TRBO was significantly longer for the braided-type CMSs with an anti-migration system than for the laser-cuttype. Stent migration tended to be less frequent with the braided-type CMSs than with the laser-cut-type CMSs.
2.Efficacy of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumor
Masanori FURUKAWA ; Akira MITORO ; Takahiro OZUTUMI ; Yukihisa FUJINAGA ; Keisuke NAKANISHI ; Koh KITAGAWA ; Soichiro SAIKAWA ; Sinya SATO ; Yasuhiko SAWADA ; Hiroaki TAKAYA ; Kosuke KAJI ; Hideto KAWARATANI ; Tadashi NAMISAKI ; Kei MORIYA ; Takemi AKAHANE ; Junichi YAMAO ; Hitoshi YOSHIJI
Clinical Endoscopy 2021;54(3):371-378
Background/Aims:
Endoscopic resection (ER) for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is challenging. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is also problematic due to the anatomical features of the duodenum. We compared the safety and efficacy of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) with those of CEMR through a retrospective analysis.
Methods:
Altogether, 44 consecutive patients with 46 SNADETs underwent ER (18 CEMR cases and 28 UEMR cases) between January 2016 and October 2019. We investigated the proportions of en bloc resection, R0 resection, complications, resection time, and total procedure time and compared the outcomes of patients from the CEMR group with those of patients from the UEMR group.
Results:
The median tumor size was 8.0 mm (range, 2.0–20.0 mm). The UEMR group showed a higher proportion of en bloc resection (96.4% vs. 72.2%, p<0.05) and significantly lower median resection time and total procedure time (4 min vs. 9.5 min, p<0.05 and 13 min vs. 19 min, p<0.05; respectively) than the CEMR group. No complications were observed. However, two patients treated with piecemeal resection in the CEMR group had residual tumors.
Conclusions
UEMR is a feasible therapeutic option for SNADETs. It can be recommended as a standard treatment.
3.Efficacy of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumor
Masanori FURUKAWA ; Akira MITORO ; Takahiro OZUTUMI ; Yukihisa FUJINAGA ; Keisuke NAKANISHI ; Koh KITAGAWA ; Soichiro SAIKAWA ; Sinya SATO ; Yasuhiko SAWADA ; Hiroaki TAKAYA ; Kosuke KAJI ; Hideto KAWARATANI ; Tadashi NAMISAKI ; Kei MORIYA ; Takemi AKAHANE ; Junichi YAMAO ; Hitoshi YOSHIJI
Clinical Endoscopy 2021;54(3):371-378
Background/Aims:
Endoscopic resection (ER) for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is challenging. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is also problematic due to the anatomical features of the duodenum. We compared the safety and efficacy of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) with those of CEMR through a retrospective analysis.
Methods:
Altogether, 44 consecutive patients with 46 SNADETs underwent ER (18 CEMR cases and 28 UEMR cases) between January 2016 and October 2019. We investigated the proportions of en bloc resection, R0 resection, complications, resection time, and total procedure time and compared the outcomes of patients from the CEMR group with those of patients from the UEMR group.
Results:
The median tumor size was 8.0 mm (range, 2.0–20.0 mm). The UEMR group showed a higher proportion of en bloc resection (96.4% vs. 72.2%, p<0.05) and significantly lower median resection time and total procedure time (4 min vs. 9.5 min, p<0.05 and 13 min vs. 19 min, p<0.05; respectively) than the CEMR group. No complications were observed. However, two patients treated with piecemeal resection in the CEMR group had residual tumors.
Conclusions
UEMR is a feasible therapeutic option for SNADETs. It can be recommended as a standard treatment.