Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-12-19DOI: 10.1055/a-2368-2271
{"title":"Author commentary on Paula Arruda do Espirito Santo et al.","authors":"","doi":"10.1055/a-2368-2271","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2368-2271","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":"57 1","pages":"v2"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142863750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-10-16DOI: 10.1055/a-2427-7128
Kornpong Vantanasiri, Prasad G Iyer
{"title":"Comparing recurrence rates between endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection in Barrett's endoscopic therapy: timing and definitions matter!","authors":"Kornpong Vantanasiri, Prasad G Iyer","doi":"10.1055/a-2427-7128","DOIUrl":"10.1055/a-2427-7128","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":"14-16"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142460678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-12-19DOI: 10.1055/a-2438-0202
Yaxian Kuai, Shiwei Zhou, Bin Sun, Xu Wang, Youwei Xiao, Aijiu Wu, Derun Kong
{"title":"Use of an endoscopic virtual ruler based on the fiber laser principle and artificial intelligence technology.","authors":"Yaxian Kuai, Shiwei Zhou, Bin Sun, Xu Wang, Youwei Xiao, Aijiu Wu, Derun Kong","doi":"10.1055/a-2438-0202","DOIUrl":"10.1055/a-2438-0202","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":"57 1","pages":"86-87"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11658867/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142863797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-08-28DOI: 10.1055/a-2368-4608
Paula Arruda do Espirito Santo, Gilmara Coelho Meine, Angélica Luciana Nau, Eduardo Cerchi Barbosa, Stefano Baraldo, Luciano Lenz, Fauze Maluf-Filho
Background: Percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) has long been the usual method for acquisition of liver tissue. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained popularity as an alternative modality. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB versus PC-LB.
Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-LB with PC-LB published until October 20, 2023. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy. Secondary outcomes were: the number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), longest sample length (LSL), total sample length (TSL), post-procedure pain scores, and adverse events (AEs), including overall AEs and AEs excluding minor post-procedure symptoms. We compared binary outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95%CIs.
Results: Four RCTs (258 patients) were included. The EUS-LB group presented lower post-procedure pain scores (SMD -0.58, 95%CI -0.95 to -0.22) than the PC-LB group. Both groups performed similarly in terms of diagnostic adequacy (RR 1.0, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.04), number of CPTs (MD 2.57, 95%CI -4.09 to 9.22), LSL (MD -2.91 mm, 95%CI -5.86 to 0.03), TSL (MD 4.16 mm, 95%CI -10.12 to 18.45), overall AEs (RR 0.54, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.46), and AEs excluding minor post-procedure symptoms (RR 1.65, 95%CI 0.21 to 13.02).
Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that EUS-LB is as safe and effective as PC-LB and is associated with lower post-procedure pain scores.Registration on PROSPERO: CRD42023469469.
{"title":"Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Paula Arruda do Espirito Santo, Gilmara Coelho Meine, Angélica Luciana Nau, Eduardo Cerchi Barbosa, Stefano Baraldo, Luciano Lenz, Fauze Maluf-Filho","doi":"10.1055/a-2368-4608","DOIUrl":"10.1055/a-2368-4608","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) has long been the usual method for acquisition of liver tissue. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained popularity as an alternative modality. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB versus PC-LB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-LB with PC-LB published until October 20, 2023. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy. Secondary outcomes were: the number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), longest sample length (LSL), total sample length (TSL), post-procedure pain scores, and adverse events (AEs), including overall AEs and AEs excluding minor post-procedure symptoms. We compared binary outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95%CIs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four RCTs (258 patients) were included. The EUS-LB group presented lower post-procedure pain scores (SMD -0.58, 95%CI -0.95 to -0.22) than the PC-LB group. Both groups performed similarly in terms of diagnostic adequacy (RR 1.0, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.04), number of CPTs (MD 2.57, 95%CI -4.09 to 9.22), LSL (MD -2.91 mm, 95%CI -5.86 to 0.03), TSL (MD 4.16 mm, 95%CI -10.12 to 18.45), overall AEs (RR 0.54, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.46), and AEs excluding minor post-procedure symptoms (RR 1.65, 95%CI 0.21 to 13.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that EUS-LB is as safe and effective as PC-LB and is associated with lower post-procedure pain scores.Registration on PROSPERO: CRD42023469469.</p>","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":"41-48"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142092504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-12-19DOI: 10.1055/a-2381-7937
{"title":"Author commentary on Carlos Fernandes et al.","authors":"","doi":"10.1055/a-2381-7937","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2381-7937","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":"57 1","pages":"v3"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142863746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-09-03DOI: 10.1055/a-2382-5891
Yusuke Fujiyoshi, Kareem Khalaf, Daniel Tham, Mary Raina Angeli Fujiyoshi, Natalia C Calo, Jeffrey D Mosko, Gary R May, Christopher W Teshima
Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are effective treatments for Barrett's neoplasia. However, little is known about recurrence rates following these techniques. We compared long-term neoplasia recurrence rates following EMR and ESD.
Methods: This study included patients with Barrett's neoplasia (high grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma) treated between July 2019 and December 2023 at a tertiary referral center in Canada. Outcomes were residual neoplasia at first follow-up, complete remission of neoplasia (CRN), and neoplasia recurrence following CRN.
Results: 157 patients were included (87 EMR, 70 ESD). Compared with EMR, the ESD group had larger lesions (median 2 vs. 3 cm, P<0.05), more adenocarcinoma (85.1% vs. 94.3%, P = 0.07), and deeper submucosal invasion (T1a: 71.6% vs. 75.8%; T1b-SM1: 25.7% vs. 6.1%; T1b≥SM2: 2.7% vs. 18.2%; P<0.05). Among 124 patients with follow-up (71 EMR, 53 ESD), 84.9% of ESD-treated patients had curative resections (i.e. R0 resection with low risk for lymph node metastasis), whereas 94.4% of EMR-treated patients had deep margin R0 resection of low risk lesions. At first follow-up, residual neoplasia (14.1% vs. 11.3%) and CRN (97.2% vs. 100%) were similar in the EMR and ESD groups, but neoplasia recurrence following CRN was significantly higher with EMR (13% vs. 1.9%, P<0.05), with cumulative probability of recurrence at 3 years of 18.3% vs. 4.2%, respectively.
Conclusions: Neoplasia recurrence following CRN was significantly higher following EMR compared with ESD, suggesting that ESD may be superior to EMR in preventing neoplasia recurrence in Barrett's esophagus.
背景：内镜粘膜切除术（EMR）和内镜粘膜下剥离术（ESD）是治疗巴雷特瘤的有效方法。然而，人们对这些技术的复发率知之甚少。我们比较了 EMR 和 ESD 术后的长期肿瘤复发率：本研究纳入了2019年7月至2023年12月期间在加拿大一家三级转诊中心接受治疗的巴雷特肿瘤（高级别发育不良/腺癌）患者。结果为首次随访时肿瘤残留、肿瘤完全缓解（CRN）和CRN后肿瘤复发：共纳入 157 例患者（87 例 EMR，70 例 ESD）。与EMR相比，ESD组患者的病灶更大（中位2 cm vs. 3 cm，PP = 0.07），粘膜下浸润更深（T1a：71.6% vs. 75.8%；T1b-SM1：25.7% vs. 6.1%；T1b≥SM2：2.7% vs. 18.2%；PPConclusions：与ESD相比，EMR术后CRN的肿瘤复发率明显更高，这表明ESD在预防巴雷特食管肿瘤复发方面可能优于EMR。
{"title":"Recurrence following successful eradication of neoplasia with endoscopic mucosal resection compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection in Barrett's esophagus: a retrospective comparison.","authors":"Yusuke Fujiyoshi, Kareem Khalaf, Daniel Tham, Mary Raina Angeli Fujiyoshi, Natalia C Calo, Jeffrey D Mosko, Gary R May, Christopher W Teshima","doi":"10.1055/a-2382-5891","DOIUrl":"10.1055/a-2382-5891","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are effective treatments for Barrett's neoplasia. However, little is known about recurrence rates following these techniques. We compared long-term neoplasia recurrence rates following EMR and ESD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included patients with Barrett's neoplasia (high grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma) treated between July 2019 and December 2023 at a tertiary referral center in Canada. Outcomes were residual neoplasia at first follow-up, complete remission of neoplasia (CRN), and neoplasia recurrence following CRN.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>157 patients were included (87 EMR, 70 ESD). Compared with EMR, the ESD group had larger lesions (median 2 vs. 3 cm, <i>P</i><0.05), more adenocarcinoma (85.1% vs. 94.3%, <i>P</i> = 0.07), and deeper submucosal invasion (T1a: 71.6% vs. 75.8%; T1b-SM1: 25.7% vs. 6.1%; T1b≥SM2: 2.7% vs. 18.2%; <i>P</i><0.05). Among 124 patients with follow-up (71 EMR, 53 ESD), 84.9% of ESD-treated patients had curative resections (i.e. R0 resection with low risk for lymph node metastasis), whereas 94.4% of EMR-treated patients had deep margin R0 resection of low risk lesions. At first follow-up, residual neoplasia (14.1% vs. 11.3%) and CRN (97.2% vs. 100%) were similar in the EMR and ESD groups, but neoplasia recurrence following CRN was significantly higher with EMR (13% vs. 1.9%, <i>P</i><0.05), with cumulative probability of recurrence at 3 years of 18.3% vs. 4.2%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Neoplasia recurrence following CRN was significantly higher following EMR compared with ESD, suggesting that ESD may be superior to EMR in preventing neoplasia recurrence in Barrett's esophagus.</p>","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":"5-13"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142125156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-12-19DOI: 10.1055/a-2388-6548
{"title":"Author commentary on Belén Martinez-Moreno et al.","authors":"","doi":"10.1055/a-2388-6548","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2388-6548","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":"57 1","pages":"v4"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142863727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-12-19DOI: 10.1055/a-2386-9046
Andrea Sorge, Giulia Tosetti, Massimo Primignani, Gian Eugenio Tontini
{"title":"Band-on-band endoscopic variceal ligation and alternative treatment strategies: Reply to Hu et al.","authors":"Andrea Sorge, Giulia Tosetti, Massimo Primignani, Gian Eugenio Tontini","doi":"10.1055/a-2386-9046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2386-9046","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":"57 1","pages":"90-91"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142863754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01Epub Date: 2024-12-19DOI: 10.1055/a-2386-9001
Ye Hu, Yi Zhang, Leiming Xu
{"title":"Comments on \"Band-on-band endoscopic variceal ligation: a technique for the treatment of esophageal varices in case of band misplacement\".","authors":"Ye Hu, Yi Zhang, Leiming Xu","doi":"10.1055/a-2386-9001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2386-9001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":"57 1","pages":"90"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142863769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号