Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology最新文献

A significant problem encountered in the resection of large, complex colonic polyps is delayed bleeding. This can occur up to two weeks after the procedure and is a significant source of comorbidity. Untreated it can prove life threatening. It is therefore a priority of modern endoscopy to develop and employ techniques to minimaize this. In this article we will review and discuss the evidence base and controversies in this field, with cold EMR technique, Post-EMR clip closure, and topical haemostatic agents.

Managing complications of ERCP poses a significant clinical challenge to endoscopists. ERCP complications can occur even after all preventive measures, which can lead to significant morbidity and even mortality. Major complications include pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and sedation-related adverse events. Early recognition of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is feasible by monitoring clinical parameters and specific cutoffs of serum amylase and lipase at 2–6 h post-ERCP. Pancreatic stenting for PEP is not recommended and can increase the incidence of infected necrosis in addition to being technically challenging. Post-sphincterotomy bleeds can be treated by diluted epinephrine with or without thermal therapy, or mechanical therapy (clips or fully covered metallic stents) failing which angiographic embolization and rarely open surgical vessel ligation may be warranted. Post-ERCP perforations can lead to significant morbidity and are usually treated with endoscopic closure of the defect, diverting bile flow, draining collections, and reducing fluid load at the site of perforation failing which surgery may be warranted. Broad-spectrum antibiotics with endoscopic or radiologic drainage of undrained segments help treat post-ERCP cholangitis. Hypoxia and hypertension are the most common sedation-related adverse events without long-term consequences except aspiration pneumonia (<0.5%). Awareness with a high index of suspicion is crucial for timely diagnosis and management of uncommon post-ERCP complications.

An oesophageal stricture refers to a narrowing of the oesophageal lumen, which may be benign or malignant. The cardinal feature is dysphagia, and this may result from intrinsic oesophageal disease or extrinsic compression. Oesophageal strictures can be further classified as simple or complex depending on stricture length, location, diameter, and underlying aetiology. Many endoscopic options are now available for treating oesophageal strictures including dilatation, injectional therapy, stenting, stricturotomy, and ablation. Self-expanding metal stents have revolutionised the palliation of malignant dysphagia, but oesophageal dilatation with balloon or bougienage remains first-line therapy for most benign strictures. The increase in endoscopic and surgical interventions on the oesophagus has seen more benign refractory oesophageal strictures that are difficult to treat, and often require advanced endoscopic techniques. In this review, we provide a practical overview on the evidence-based management of both benign and malignant oesophageal strictures, including a practical algorithm for managing benign refractory strictures.

Endoscopic resection techniques have evolved over time, allowing effective and safe resection of the majority of pre-malignant and early cancerous lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. Bleeding is one of the most commonly encountered complications during endoscopic resection, which can interfere with the procedure and result in serious adverse events. Intraprocedural bleeding is relatively common during endoscopic resection and, in most cases, is a mild and self-limiting event. However, it can interfere with the completion of the resection and may result in negative patient-related outcomes in severe cases, including the need for hospitalization and blood transfusion as well as the requirement for radiological or surgical interventions. Appropriate management of intraprocedural bleeding can improve the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection, and it can be readily achieved with the use of several endoscopic hemostatic tools. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in the approach to intraprocedural bleeding complicating endoscopic resection, with a focus on the various endoscopic hemostatic tools available to manage such events safely and effectively.

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) stands as a remarkable innovation in the realm of gastroenterology and its allied disciplines. EUS has evolved to such an extent that it now assumes a pivotal role in both diagnosis and therapeutics. In addition, it has developed as a tool which is also capable of addressing complications arising from endoscopic and surgical procedures. This minimally invasive technique combines endoscopy with high-frequency ultrasound, facilitating, high-resolution images of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent structures.

Complications within the gastrointestinal tract, whether stemming from endoscopic or surgical procedures, frequently arise due to disruption in the integrity of the gastrointestinal tract wall. While these complications are usually promptly detected, there are instances where their onset is delayed. EUS plays a dual role in the management of these complications. Firstly, in its ability to assess and increasingly to definitively manage complications through drainage procedures.

It is increasingly employed to manage post-surgical collections, abscesses biliary strictures and bleeding. Its high-resolution imaging capability allows precise real-time visualisation of these complications.

In the last decades, Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has rapidly grown and evolved from being mainly a diagnostic procedure, to being an interventional and therapeutic tool in several pathological clinical scenarios. With the progressive growth in technical expertise and dedicated devices, interventional endoscopic ultrasound procedures (IEUSP) have shown high rates of technical and clinical success, together with a relatively safe profile. However, the description and the standardization of different and specific types of adverse events (AEs) are still scarce in literature, and, consequently, even less the management of AEs. The aim of this study is to critical review and to describe AEs related to each of the main IEUSP, and to provide an overview on the possible management strategies of endoscopic complications. Future studies and guidelines are surely required to reach a better standardization of different AEs and their best management.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a common endoscopic procedure which plays a key role in the management of diseases of the bile ducts and the pancreas. Despite ERCP being performed routinely since more than 4 decades, it is still related to a considerable rate of complications with post-ERCP pancreatitis being the most frequent one.

Lately, endoscopic techniques have evolved, and numerous modalities have been developed to prevent or manage ERCP-related complications, especially PEP, such as the use of intra-rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), insertion of prophylactic stents in the pancreatic duct (PD) or intravenous hyperhydration. Knowledge of the various risk factors and applying validated preventive methods are keys in providing a safe procedure and optimizing overall patient care.

While the endoscopic management of surgical complications like leaks, fistulas, and perforations is rapidly evolving, its core principles revolve around closure, drainage, and containment. Effectively managing these conditions relies on several factors, such as the underlying cause, chronicity of the lesion, tissue viability, co-morbidities, availability of devices, and expertise required to perform the endoscopy. In contrast to acute perforation, fistulas and leaks often demand a multimodal approach requiring more than one session to achieve the required results. Although the ultimate goal is complete resolution, these endoscopic interventions can provide clinical stability, enabling enteral feeding to lead to early hospital discharge or elective surgery. In this discussion, we emphasize the current state of knowledge and the prospective role of endoscopic interventions in managing surgical complications.

Endoscopic resection techniques enable en-bloc resection of T1 colon cancers. A complete removal of T1 colon cancer can be considered curative when histologic examination of the specimens shows none of the high-risk factors for lymph nodes metastases. Criteria predicting lymph nodes metastases include deep submucosal invasion, poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and high-grade tumor budding. In these cases, complete (R0), local endoscopic resection is considered sufficient as negligible risk of lymph nodes metastases does not outweigh morbidity and mortality associated with surgical resection. Challenges arise when endoscopic resection is incomplete (RX/R1) or high-risk histological features are present. The risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 CRC ranges from 1% to 36.4%, depending on histologic risk factors. Presence of any risk factor labels the patient “high risk,” warranting oncologic surgery with mesocolic lymphadenectomy. However, even if 70%–80% of T1-CRC patients are classified as high-risk, more than 90% are without lymph node involvement after oncological surgery. Surgical overtreatment in T1 CRC is a challenge, requiring a balance between oncologic safety and minimizing morbidity/mortality. This narrative review explores the landscape of managing non-curative T1 colon cancer, focusing on the choice between advanced endoscopic resection techniques and surgical interventions. We discuss surveillance strategies and shared decision-making, emphasizing the importance of a multidisciplinary approach.