AIM: To determine if there is consistency between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) findings and pathological results for detecting lesions of different depth in the esophageal mucosa. METHODS: A canine (Beagle) model was established in which lesions of different depths were created in the esophageal mucosa by thermal burning. Seventy-two hours later, these lesions and adjacent tissue in the esophagus were examined by EUS. EUS findings including infiltrating depth, strength of echogenicity and homogeneity were recorded. Dogs were sacrificed and tissue specimens were obtained. We then compared the EUS findings with the pathology reports. RESULTS: Thermal burns created at different power settings caused lesions of different depth in the esophageal mucosa. When the echo strength was shifted from high, medium, to low echogenicity, an increase in the infiltrating depth of the lesion was noted, which coincided with results of the pathology examination. Obvious submucosal edema visualized by EUS was also detected by pathology. Furthermore, because of the enhancement caused by the submucosal edema, the lesions invading into the submucosa were easily visualized by EUS. CONCLUSION: There is consistency between EUS findings and pathological results of esophageal lesions with different depths. Submucosal edema can serve as an ultrasonic contrast agent.
AIM: To determine if there is consistency between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) findings and pathological results for detecting lesions of different depth in the esophageal mucosa. METHODS: A canine (Beagle) model was established in which lesions of different depths were created in the esophageal mucosa by thermal burning. Seventy-two hours later, these lesions and adjacent tissue in the esophagus were examined by EUS. EUS findings including infiltrating depth, strength of echogenicity and homogeneity were recorded. Dogs were sacrificed and tissue specimens were obtained. We then compared the EUS findings with the pathology reports. RESULTS: Thermal burns created at different power settings caused lesions of different depth in the esophageal mucosa. When the echo strength was shifted from high, medium, to low echogenicity, an increase in the infiltrating depth of the lesion was noted, which coincided with results of the pathology examination. Obvious submucosal edema visualized by EUS was also detected by pathology. Furthermore, because of the enhancement caused by the submucosal edema, the lesions invading into the submucosa were easily visualized by EUS. CONCLUSION: There is consistency between EUS findings and pathological results of esophageal lesions with different depths. Submucosal edema can serve as an ultrasonic contrast agent.