A case of duodenal polyp at superior duodenal angle successfully treated by cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tanaka I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7730507 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7947368 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5991140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic papillectomy is currently used to treat noninvasive tumors of the papilla of Vater, but it is seldom reported for treatment of similar tumors of the minor papilla. This report describes the case of a 69-year-old female with a tumor located at the duodenal minor papilla. Findings of duodenoscopy, biopsy, and pancreatography indicated that her noninvasive tumor of the minor papilla was suitable for treatment with endoscopic resection. Glycerol-injected endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) was performed, and the resected material histologically showed carcinoma in the adenoma, negative for neoplastic extension at the cut margin. No complications occurred during the treatment course, and no recurrence has been recognized for 80 months. Unlike the major papilla of Vater, the minor papilla can be lifted up by submucosal injection. Noninvasive epithelial tumors of the duodenal minor papilla without extension to the pancreatic duct can be successfully treated with EMR, as the technique is easy, it is minimally invasive, and it is curative.
| S-EPMC4798838 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionAlthough recent guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NET) ≤10 mm, there is no consensus on which endoscopic modality should be performed. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of modified cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (mEMR-C) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) methods for the treatment of rectal NET ≤10 mm.MethodsA randomized noninferiority trial comparing mEMR-C and ESD was conducted. The primary outcome was the histological complete resection rate; the secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rate, operation time, complications, and so on. Subgroup analyses and follow-up were also performed.ResultsNinety patients were enrolled, and 79 patients with pathologically confirmed rectal NET were finally analyzed, including 38 cases of mEMR-C and 41 cases of ESD. Histological complete resection rate was 97.4% in the mEMR-C group and 92.7% in the ESD group. The noninferiority of mEMR-C compared with that of ESD was confirmed because the absolute difference was 4.7% (2-sided 90% confidence interval, -3.3% to 12.2%; P = 0.616). En bloc resection and successful removal of rectal NET were achieved in all patients. Advantages of mEMR-C over ESD included shorter operation time (8.89 ± 4.58 vs 24.8 ± 9.14 minutes, P < 0.05) and lower hospitalization cost ($2,233.76 ± $717.70 vs $2,987.27 ± $871.81, P < 0.05). Postoperative complications were recorded in 4 patients who received mEMR-C and 2 patients in the ESD group (11.5% vs 4.9%, P = 0.509), which were all well managed using endoscopy. Similar findings were observed when subgroup analysis was performed.DiscussionmEMR-C is noninferior to ESD with a similar complete resection rate. In addition, mEMR-C had shorter procedure duration time and lower hospitalization costs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03982264.
| S-EPMC10508268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.
| S-EPMC8759939 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8580686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo evaluate if traction-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (TA-EMR) is feasible and if it enables en bloc resection of colorectal lesions.MethodsSeven patients with a total of 12 colorectal adenomas were prospectively enrolled. All lesions were removed by TA-EMR: one hemostatic clip tied to a white silk suture was applied to the base of the lesion to allow traction through the working channel of the colonoscope. A conventional polypectomy snare was mounted over the suture and the lesion was pulled into the snare and resected in one piece.ResultsAll 12 lesions (nine sessile) were resected en bloc with free lateral and vertical margins by using this novel technique, including five lesions (5/12, 41.6%) in less-accessible positions, where TA-EMR enabled complete visualization of the base before resection. Mean longest lesion and specimen sizes were 9 mm (range: 6-25 mm) and 11 mm in diameter (range: 7-17 mm), respectively. No serious procedure-related complications were observed.ConclusionTA-EMR through the endoscope using a hemostatic clip and suture material is technically feasible. Visualization of colorectal lesions in less-accessible locations can be improved.
| S-EPMC2988240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1Gel immersion endoscopy-facilitated endoscopic mucosal resection of a superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumor.
| S-EPMC8431274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsDuodenal polyps have a reported incidence of 0.3% to 4.6%. Sporadic, nonampullary duodenal adenomas (SNDAs) comprise less than 10% of all duodenal polyps, and ampullary adenomas are even less common. Nonetheless, the incidence continues to rise because of widespread endoscopy use. Duodenal polyps with villous features or those that are larger than 10 mm may raise concern for malignancy and require removal. We demonstrate endoscopic resection of SNDAs and ampullary adenomas using some of our preferred techniques.MethodsThe duodenum has several components that can make EMR of duodenal polyps technically challenging. Not only does the duodenum have a thin muscle layer, but it is also highly mobile and vascular, which may explain higher rates of perforation and bleeding of duodenal EMR reported in the literature compared with colon EMR. A standard adult gastroscope with a distal cap is commonly used for duodenal EMRs. Based on the location, however, side-viewing duodenoscopes or pediatric colonoscopes may be used. To prepare for EMR, a submucosal injection is performed for an adequate lift. The polyp is then resected via stiff monofilament snares and subsequently closed with hemostatic clips if feasible. The ampullectomy technique differs slightly from duodenal EMRs and carries the additional risk of pancreatitis. Submucosal injection in the ampulla may not lift well; thus, its utility is debatable. Biliary sphincterotomy should be performed, and based on endoscopist preference, the pancreatic duct (PD) guidewire can be left during resection to maintain access. After resection, a PD stent is placed to minimize pancreatitis risk.ResultsThe video shows the aforementioned duodenal EMR techniques. Two clips of ampullectomy are also shown in the video.ConclusionsA few common techniques used to perform duodenal EMR and ampullectomy are highlighted in the video. It is important to understand and manage adverse events associated with these procedures and to have established surveillance plans.
| S-EPMC10422085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1.
| S-EPMC8351124 | biostudies-literature