Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) of esophageal varices combined with endoscopic variceal intensive ligation (EVIL) of gastric varices for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding with liver cirrhosis under non-emergency settings.Methods:Data of 643 consecutive patients with gastroesophageal variceal bleeding due to liver cirrhosis admitted to the Department of Gastroenterology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital from January 2017 to March 2023 were included in the retrospective study. A total of 192 patients were included after excluding 451 patients. One hundred and forty-nine patients who underwent EVL of esophageal varices combined with EVIL of gastric varices were enrolled into the EVIL group, while 43 patients who underwent EVL of esophageal varices combined with endoscopic tissue adhesive injection (ETAI) of gastric varices were enrolled into the ETAI group. The endoscopic treatment success rate, esophageal variceal ligations number, operation time of endoscopic treatment, hospitalization time, rebleeding rate, mortality and the incidence of adverse events were compared between the two groups.Results:Compared with the ETAI group, the EVIL group exhibited significantly higher endoscopic treatment success rate [100.0% (149/149) VS 95.3% (41/43), P=0.049], slightly greater esophageal variceal ligations number [8 (6, 11) rings VS 7 (6, 9) rings, Z=-1.29, P=0.196], shorter operation time of endoscopic treatment [27.0 (20.5, 34.0) min VS 36.0 (21.0, 51.0) min, Z=-2.30, P=0.021], and significantly shorter hospitalization time [10 (7, 13) d VS 13 (9, 15) d, Z=-3.02, P=0.003]. The rebleeding rate within 24, 72, 120 hours after the operation, early, delayed and total rebleeding in the EVIL group were 0.0% (0/149), 0.0% (0/149), 0.7% (1/149), 2.0% (3/149), 12.8% (19/149) and 14.8% (22/149) respectively, and 4.7% (2/43) ( P=0.049), 9.3% (4/43) ( P=0.002), 9.3% (4/43) ( χ2=6.69, P=0.010), 4.7% (2/43) ( χ2=0.17, P=0.679), 30.2% (13/43) ( χ2=7.34, P=0.007) and 44.2% (19/43) ( χ2=17.20, P<0.001) in the ETAI group, respectively. No death related to rebleeding occurred within 6 weeks after the operation in 2 groups. The mortality related to rebleeding within 1 year after the operation and during the follow-up period in the EVIL group were 1.3% (2/149) and 3.4% (5/149) respectively, and 0.0% (0/43) ( P=1.000) and 2.3% (1/43) ( χ2=0.02, P=0.876) in the ETAI group, respectively. The incidences of fever, chest pain, nausea or vomiting in the EVIL group were 12.1% (18/149), 14.1% (21/149) and 13.4% (20/149) respectively, and 11.6% (5/43) ( χ2=0.01, P=0.936), 16.3% (7/43) ( χ2=0.13, P=0.721) and 18.6% (8/43) ( χ2=0.72, P=0.396) in the ETAI group, respectively. Two patients (1.3%) in the EVIL group had gastric variceal ring loss. Ectopic embolism occurred in 1 patient (2.3%) in the ETAI group. Conclusion:For patients with gastroesophageal variceal bleeding due to liver cirrhosis who are suitable for non-emergency endoscopic treatment, EVL of esophageal varices combined with EVIL of gastric varices is also safe, and more effective than EVL of esophageal varices combined with ETAI of gastric varices. This approach offers improved treatment success rate, reduced operation and hospitalization time, lower rebleeding rates, and decreased rebleeding-related mortality.

Objective:To compare the efficacy of saline irrigation following mesh basket lithotripsy and mesh basket combined with balloon lithotripsy for choledocholithiasis.Methods:Data of 76 patients who received endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis in Henan Provincial People's Hospital from May 2021 to May 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 30 patients underwent saline irrigation of the biliary tract after mesh basket lithotripsy (the saline group), while 46 patients underwent mesh basket combined with balloon lithotripsy (the balloon group). The procedure success rate, operation time, procedure cost, and incidence of postoperative complications were compared.Results:The stone extraction success rates were 100.0% in both groups. The operation time in the saline group was shorter than that in the balloon group [20.0 (16.0, 27.5) min VS 29.0 (22.0, 33.3) min, Z=-2.88 , P=0.004]. The procedure cost in the saline group was lower than that in the balloon group [13 466.5 (13 318.0, 13 784.0) yuan VS 16 209.0 (15 989.0, 16 327.8) yuan, Z=-6.37 , P<0.001]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative fever, cholangitis or pancreatitis between the two groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Compared with mesh basket combined with balloon lithotripsy, saline irrigation of the biliary tract after mesh basket lithotripsy can shorten the operation time, reduce the procedure cost, and maintain a high procedure success rate for treating choledocholithiasis.

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) of esophageal varices combined with endoscopic variceal intensive ligation (EVIL) of gastric varices for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding with liver cirrhosis under non-emergency settings.Methods:Data of 643 consecutive patients with gastroesophageal variceal bleeding due to liver cirrhosis admitted to the Department of Gastroenterology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital from January 2017 to March 2023 were included in the retrospective study. A total of 192 patients were included after excluding 451 patients. One hundred and forty-nine patients who underwent EVL of esophageal varices combined with EVIL of gastric varices were enrolled into the EVIL group, while 43 patients who underwent EVL of esophageal varices combined with endoscopic tissue adhesive injection (ETAI) of gastric varices were enrolled into the ETAI group. The endoscopic treatment success rate, esophageal variceal ligations number, operation time of endoscopic treatment, hospitalization time, rebleeding rate, mortality and the incidence of adverse events were compared between the two groups.Results:Compared with the ETAI group, the EVIL group exhibited significantly higher endoscopic treatment success rate [100.0% (149/149) VS 95.3% (41/43), P=0.049], slightly greater esophageal variceal ligations number [8 (6, 11) rings VS 7 (6, 9) rings, Z=-1.29, P=0.196], shorter operation time of endoscopic treatment [27.0 (20.5, 34.0) min VS 36.0 (21.0, 51.0) min, Z=-2.30, P=0.021], and significantly shorter hospitalization time [10 (7, 13) d VS 13 (9, 15) d, Z=-3.02, P=0.003]. The rebleeding rate within 24, 72, 120 hours after the operation, early, delayed and total rebleeding in the EVIL group were 0.0% (0/149), 0.0% (0/149), 0.7% (1/149), 2.0% (3/149), 12.8% (19/149) and 14.8% (22/149) respectively, and 4.7% (2/43) ( P=0.049), 9.3% (4/43) ( P=0.002), 9.3% (4/43) ( χ2=6.69, P=0.010), 4.7% (2/43) ( χ2=0.17, P=0.679), 30.2% (13/43) ( χ2=7.34, P=0.007) and 44.2% (19/43) ( χ2=17.20, P<0.001) in the ETAI group, respectively. No death related to rebleeding occurred within 6 weeks after the operation in 2 groups. The mortality related to rebleeding within 1 year after the operation and during the follow-up period in the EVIL group were 1.3% (2/149) and 3.4% (5/149) respectively, and 0.0% (0/43) ( P=1.000) and 2.3% (1/43) ( χ2=0.02, P=0.876) in the ETAI group, respectively. The incidences of fever, chest pain, nausea or vomiting in the EVIL group were 12.1% (18/149), 14.1% (21/149) and 13.4% (20/149) respectively, and 11.6% (5/43) ( χ2=0.01, P=0.936), 16.3% (7/43) ( χ2=0.13, P=0.721) and 18.6% (8/43) ( χ2=0.72, P=0.396) in the ETAI group, respectively. Two patients (1.3%) in the EVIL group had gastric variceal ring loss. Ectopic embolism occurred in 1 patient (2.3%) in the ETAI group. Conclusion:For patients with gastroesophageal variceal bleeding due to liver cirrhosis who are suitable for non-emergency endoscopic treatment, EVL of esophageal varices combined with EVIL of gastric varices is also safe, and more effective than EVL of esophageal varices combined with ETAI of gastric varices. This approach offers improved treatment success rate, reduced operation and hospitalization time, lower rebleeding rates, and decreased rebleeding-related mortality.

Objective:To compare the efficacy of saline irrigation following mesh basket lithotripsy and mesh basket combined with balloon lithotripsy for choledocholithiasis.Methods:Data of 76 patients who received endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis in Henan Provincial People's Hospital from May 2021 to May 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 30 patients underwent saline irrigation of the biliary tract after mesh basket lithotripsy (the saline group), while 46 patients underwent mesh basket combined with balloon lithotripsy (the balloon group). The procedure success rate, operation time, procedure cost, and incidence of postoperative complications were compared.Results:The stone extraction success rates were 100.0% in both groups. The operation time in the saline group was shorter than that in the balloon group [20.0 (16.0, 27.5) min VS 29.0 (22.0, 33.3) min, Z=-2.88 , P=0.004]. The procedure cost in the saline group was lower than that in the balloon group [13 466.5 (13 318.0, 13 784.0) yuan VS 16 209.0 (15 989.0, 16 327.8) yuan, Z=-6.37 , P<0.001]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative fever, cholangitis or pancreatitis between the two groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Compared with mesh basket combined with balloon lithotripsy, saline irrigation of the biliary tract after mesh basket lithotripsy can shorten the operation time, reduce the procedure cost, and maintain a high procedure success rate for treating choledocholithiasis.

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection using snares for the treatment of gastric submucosal tumors(SMTs).Methods 66 patients diagnosed with gastric SMTs and treated with endoscopic resection from August 2017 to August 2023 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into the snare group(endoscopic resection using snares,n=33)and the traditional resection group(endoscopic resection using a traditional disposable incision knife,n=33).The operation time,overall resection rate,incidence of adverse reactions,operation cost,hospitalisation cost,and the post-operative hospital days were compared between the two groups.Results The lesion diameter was 8.00(6.00,14.00)mm in the snare group and 8.00(7.50,10.00)mm in the traditional resection group,the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant(P>0.05);The operative time in the snare group was significantly shorter than that in the traditional resection group[26.00(19.00,30.50)min vs 33.00(22.50,49.50)min],the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);The overall resection rate in both groups was 100.0%;Neither group of patients had intraoperative perforation.There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse reactions such as intraoperative bleeding,abdominal pain and fever between the two group(P>0.05);The operative cost of the snare group was significantly lower than the traditional endoscopic resection group[(8 642.18±1 078.56)yuan vs(13 266.45±2 160.80)yuan],the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion Compared with traditional surgical instruments,endoscopic resection of gastric SMTs using snares has a shorter operating time,lower surgical costs,safe and effective,making it worthy of promotion.