Literature DB >> 16650552

Use of modified multiband ligator facilitates circumferential EMR in Barrett's esophagus (with video).

Nib Soehendra1, Stefan Seewald, Stefan Groth, Salem Omar, Uwe Seitz, Yan Zhong, Andreas de Weerth, Frank Thonke, Soeren Schroeder.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various techniques are available for EMR in the upper- and lower-GI tract. For early cancers of the esophagus, the "suck and cut" technique, which uses a transparent cap or variceal band ligator, is the most commonly practiced method. To facilitate multiple or circumferential EMR, a modified multiband variceal ligator (MBL) is introduced, which allows sequential banding and snare resection without the need to withdraw the endoscope.
OBJECTIVE: To study the feasibility of modified MBL device in facilitating circumferential EMR of Barrett's esophagus (BE) that contains high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) and/or intramucosal cancer (IMC).
DESIGN: To enable band delivery with a snare inserted in the therapeutic endoscope, the threading channel of the cranking device is enlarged from 2 to 3.2 mm. The 6-shooter MBL was used. PATIENTS: Ten consecutive patients (all men; median age, 62 years; range 43-82 years) with BE were treated. IMC and HGIN were found in 8 and 2 patients, respectively.
INTERVENTIONS: EMR was performed with pure coagulating current when using a 1.5 x 2.5-cm mini hexagonal polypectomy snare. No submucosal saline solution injection was performed before resection.
RESULTS: In 5 of 10 patients with circumferential BE of 2 to 9 cm in length (median, 4 cm), complete circumferential EMR was performed in 1 session by using 3 to 18 bands (median, 6). Four patients with 3- to 10-cm (median, 4 cm) long segment BE required 2 to 5 sessions (median, 3) with a total of 5 to 42 bands (median, 12). Another patient with multifocal HGIN and/or IMC in 24 of a total of 49 specimens was finally recommended for surgery because of technical difficulties caused by mural thickening after 4 sessions. No serious procedure-related complications were observed, except for 2 minor bleedings, which were controlled endoscopically. Seven patients developed strictures after circumferential EMR. All patients except 1 were successfully managed by weekly bougienage after a median of 5 sessions (range 3-11). Deep-wall tears developed in 1 patient during the fourth bougienage session, for which limited distal esophageal resection was performed with an uneventful outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: The novel technique of MBL-EMR described here facilitated and simplified circumferential removal of BE that contained HGIN and/or IMC. However, the method is associated with a very high stricture rate if circumferential EMR is performed in a single session. Complete removal of BE should be achieved by repeated partial EMR. Long-term follow-up is needed to observe for late recurrence and to determine the clinical impact of this method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16650552     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2005.06.052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  28 in total

1.  [Endoscopic therapy in early gastric cancer].

Authors:  H Manner; O Pech; C Ell
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  Endoscopic management of Barrett's esophagus: advances in endoscopic techniques.

Authors:  Ali Azarm; Ismet Lukolic; Meenal Shukla; Ronald Concha-Parra; Frank Gress
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-07-04       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 3.  Endoscopic resection of early oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  Oliver Pech; Andrea May; Thomas Rabenstein; Christian Ell
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 4.  Multiband mucosectomy for advanced dysplastic lesions in the upper digestive tract.

Authors:  Jesús Espinel; Eugenia Pinedo; Vanesa Ojeda; Maria Guerra Del Rio
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-16

Review 5.  American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Stuart J Spechler; Prateek Sharma; Rhonda F Souza; John M Inadomi; Nicholas J Shaheen
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Predictors of esophageal stricture formation post endoscopic mucosal resection.

Authors:  Bashar Qumseya; Abraham M Panossian; Cynthia Rizk; David Cangemi; Christianne Wolfsen; Massimo Raimondo; Timothy Woodward; Michael B Wallace; Herbert Wolfsen
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2014-03-31

7.  Endoluminal resection and tissue acquisition.

Authors:  Tiing Leong Ang; Stefan Seewald
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06

8.  Prospective feasibility study on the use of multiband mucosectomy for endoscopic resection of early squamous neoplasia in the esophagus.

Authors:  Y M Zhang; D F Boerwinkel; S He; B L A M Weusten; L Y Xue; D E Fleischer; N Lu; S M Dawsey; S M Zuo; X M Qin; L Z Dou; J J G H M Bergman; G Q Wang
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 10.093

9.  Correlation between endoscopic forceps biopsies and endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic ultrasound in patients with Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia and early cancer.

Authors:  Prashanthi N Thota; Alaa Sada; Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Sunguk Jang; Rocio Lopez; John R Goldblum; Xiuli Liu; John A Dumot; John Vargo; Gregory Zuccarro
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Validation of the application of the Japanese curative criteria for superficial adenocarcinoma at the esophagogastric junction treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection: a long-term analysis.

Authors:  Kenichiro Imai; Naomi Kakushima; Masaki Tanaka; Kohei Takizawa; Hiroyuki Matsubayashi; Kinichi Hotta; Yuichiro Yamaguchi; Hiroyuki Ono
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.