Peroral flexible endoscopy is a minimally invasive technique that enables the local resection of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) with malignant potential. Resection techniques are mainly chosen on the basis of the lesion size. Minute SETs less than 1 cm should be managed through a watch and wait strategy, with the exception of histologically diagnosed superficial lesions, which require endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. For 1- to 3-cm small SETs, endoscopic enucleation techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal excavation, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and peroral endoscopic tumor resection, can be used. However, endoscopic full-thickness resection is preferred for histologically complete removal with negative surgical margins. When endoscopic full-thickness resection is considered technically difficult, laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) is a safe and dependable alternative. Moderate-sized SETs (3 to 5 cm) require surgical intervention because the lesions must be removed transabdominally. LECS is a less invasive surgical procedure as it reduces the resection area; however, some LECS techniques that require transoral tumor retrieval are not available. Endoscopic intervention for lesions larger than 5 cm should be used with caution for research purposes. With advancements in endoscopic diagnosis, the indications for endoscopic treatment for SETs are expected to improve, thereby enhancing patients’ quality of life.

Peroral flexible endoscopy is a minimally invasive technique that enables the local resection of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) with malignant potential. Resection techniques are mainly chosen on the basis of the lesion size. Minute SETs less than 1 cm should be managed through a watch and wait strategy, with the exception of histologically diagnosed superficial lesions, which require endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. For 1- to 3-cm small SETs, endoscopic enucleation techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal excavation, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and peroral endoscopic tumor resection, can be used. However, endoscopic full-thickness resection is preferred for histologically complete removal with negative surgical margins. When endoscopic full-thickness resection is considered technically difficult, laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) is a safe and dependable alternative. Moderate-sized SETs (3 to 5 cm) require surgical intervention because the lesions must be removed transabdominally. LECS is a less invasive surgical procedure as it reduces the resection area; however, some LECS techniques that require transoral tumor retrieval are not available. Endoscopic intervention for lesions larger than 5 cm should be used with caution for research purposes. With advancements in endoscopic diagnosis, the indications for endoscopic treatment for SETs are expected to improve, thereby enhancing patients’ quality of life.

Peroral flexible endoscopy is a minimally invasive technique that enables the local resection of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) with malignant potential. Resection techniques are mainly chosen on the basis of the lesion size. Minute SETs less than 1 cm should be managed through a watch and wait strategy, with the exception of histologically diagnosed superficial lesions, which require endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. For 1- to 3-cm small SETs, endoscopic enucleation techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal excavation, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and peroral endoscopic tumor resection, can be used. However, endoscopic full-thickness resection is preferred for histologically complete removal with negative surgical margins. When endoscopic full-thickness resection is considered technically difficult, laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) is a safe and dependable alternative. Moderate-sized SETs (3 to 5 cm) require surgical intervention because the lesions must be removed transabdominally. LECS is a less invasive surgical procedure as it reduces the resection area; however, some LECS techniques that require transoral tumor retrieval are not available. Endoscopic intervention for lesions larger than 5 cm should be used with caution for research purposes. With advancements in endoscopic diagnosis, the indications for endoscopic treatment for SETs are expected to improve, thereby enhancing patients’ quality of life.

Peroral flexible endoscopy is a minimally invasive technique that enables the local resection of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) with malignant potential. Resection techniques are mainly chosen on the basis of the lesion size. Minute SETs less than 1 cm should be managed through a watch and wait strategy, with the exception of histologically diagnosed superficial lesions, which require endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. For 1- to 3-cm small SETs, endoscopic enucleation techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal excavation, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and peroral endoscopic tumor resection, can be used. However, endoscopic full-thickness resection is preferred for histologically complete removal with negative surgical margins. When endoscopic full-thickness resection is considered technically difficult, laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) is a safe and dependable alternative. Moderate-sized SETs (3 to 5 cm) require surgical intervention because the lesions must be removed transabdominally. LECS is a less invasive surgical procedure as it reduces the resection area; however, some LECS techniques that require transoral tumor retrieval are not available. Endoscopic intervention for lesions larger than 5 cm should be used with caution for research purposes. With advancements in endoscopic diagnosis, the indications for endoscopic treatment for SETs are expected to improve, thereby enhancing patients’ quality of life.

A diagnosis of subepithelial tumors (SETs) is sometimes difficult due to the existence of overlying mucosa on the lesions, which hampers optical diagnosis by conventional endoscopy and tissue sampling with standard biopsy forceps. Imaging modalities, by using computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are mandatory to noninvasively collect the target’s information and to opt candidates for further evaluation. Particularly, EUS is an indispensable diagnostic modality for assessing the lesions precisely and evaluating the possibility of malignancy. The diagnostic ability of EUS appears increased by the combined use of contrast-enhancement or elastography. Histology is the gold standard for obtaining the final diagnosis. Tissue sampling requires special techniques to break the mucosal barrier. Although EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is commonly applied, mucosal cutting biopsy and mucosal incision-assisted biopsy are comparable methods to definitively obtain tissues from the exposed surface of lesions and seem more useful than EUS-FNA for small SETs. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have a potential to drastically change the diagnostic strategy for SETs. Development and establishment of noninvasive methods including AI-assisted diagnosis are expected to provide an alternative to invasive, histological diagnosis.

Background/Aims: Three-dimensional (3D) flexible endoscopy, a new imaging modality that provides a stereoscopic view, can facilitate endoscopic hand suturing (EHS), a novel intraluminal suturing technique. This ex-vivo pilot study evaluated the usefulness of 3D endoscopy in EHS. Methods: Four endoscopists (two certified, two non-certified) performed EHS in six sessions on a soft resin pad. Each session involved five stitches, under alternating 3D and two-dimensional (2D) conditions. Suturing time (sec/session), changes in suturing time, and accuracy of suturing were compared between 2D and 3D conditions. Results: The mean suturing time was shorter in 3D than in 2D (9.8±3.4 min/session vs. 11.2±5.1 min/session) conditions and EHS was completed faster in 3D conditions, particularly by non-certified endoscopists. The suturing speed increased as the 3D sessions progressed. Error rates (failure to grasp the needle, failure to thread the needle, and puncture retrial) in the 3D condition were lower than those in the 2D condition, whereas there was no apparent difference in deviation distance. Conclusions 3D endoscopy may contribute to increasing the speed and accuracy of EHS in a short time period. Stereoscopic viewing during 3D endoscopy may help in efficient skill acquisition for EHS, particularly among novice endoscopists.

　　A 48-year-old man with jaundice was referred to our hospital. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography showed primary sclerosing cholangitis. Endoscopic biliary drainage was not successful because of highly viscous bile, so we performed percutaneous trans-gallbladder drainage (PTGBD), which was able to reduce the total serum bilirubin level from 8 to 10mg/ml. Subsequently, an indwelling drainage catheter was placed in the gallbladder for 13 months. However, liver atrophy worsened with the gradual progression of hepatic failure. Twelve months later, he complained of dyspnea. Computed abdominal tomography showed that the drainage catheter had perforated the diaphragm and become exposed to the chest cavity. In spite of intensive care, the patient died of liver failure while waiting for a liver transplant. Careful attention should be paid to the possibility of this serious complication in such patients.

No abstract available.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To investigate whether the EndoLifter (Olympus), a counter-traction device facilitating submucosal dissection, can accelerate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). METHODS: Two endoscopists (novice/expert in ESD) performed 64 ESDs (artificial 3-cm lesions) in 16 ex vivo pig stomachs: per stomach, two at the posterior wall (forward approach) and two at the lesser curvature (retroflex approach). Per approach, one lesion was dissected with (EL+) and one without (EL-) the EndoLifter. The submucosal dissection time (SDT), corrected for specimen size, and the influence of ESD experience on EndoLifter usefulness were assessed. RESULTS: En bloc resection rate was 98.4%. In the forward approach, the median SDT was shorter with the EndoLifter (0.56 min/cm2 vs. 0.91 min/cm2), although not significantly (p=0.09). The ESD-experienced endoscopist benefitted more from the EndoLifter (0.45 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.07) than the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist (0.77 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 1.01 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.48). In the retroflex approach, the median SDTs were 1.06 (EL+) and 0.48 (EL-) min/cm2 (p=0.16). The EndoLifter did not shorten the SDT for the ESD-experienced endoscopist (0.68 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.78), whereas the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist seemed hindered (1.65 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.38 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In gastric ESD, the EndoLifter, in trend, shortens SDTs in the forward, but not in the retroflex approach. Given the low numbers in this study, a type II error cannot be excluded.
Gastric Mucosa ; Stomach ; Stomach Neoplasms ; Swine

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To investigate whether the EndoLifter (Olympus), a counter-traction device facilitating submucosal dissection, can accelerate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). METHODS: Two endoscopists (novice/expert in ESD) performed 64 ESDs (artificial 3-cm lesions) in 16 ex vivo pig stomachs: per stomach, two at the posterior wall (forward approach) and two at the lesser curvature (retroflex approach). Per approach, one lesion was dissected with (EL+) and one without (EL-) the EndoLifter. The submucosal dissection time (SDT), corrected for specimen size, and the influence of ESD experience on EndoLifter usefulness were assessed. RESULTS: En bloc resection rate was 98.4%. In the forward approach, the median SDT was shorter with the EndoLifter (0.56 min/cm2 vs. 0.91 min/cm2), although not significantly (p=0.09). The ESD-experienced endoscopist benefitted more from the EndoLifter (0.45 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.07) than the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist (0.77 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 1.01 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.48). In the retroflex approach, the median SDTs were 1.06 (EL+) and 0.48 (EL-) min/cm2 (p=0.16). The EndoLifter did not shorten the SDT for the ESD-experienced endoscopist (0.68 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.78), whereas the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist seemed hindered (1.65 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.38 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In gastric ESD, the EndoLifter, in trend, shortens SDTs in the forward, but not in the retroflex approach. Given the low numbers in this study, a type II error cannot be excluded.
Gastric Mucosa ; Stomach ; Stomach Neoplasms ; Swine