Management of patients after failed peroral endoscopic myotomy: A multicenter study

Background Although peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is highly effective for the management of achalasia, clinical failures may occur. The optimal management of patients who fail POEM is not well known. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of different management strategies in patients who had failed POEM. Methods This was an international multicenter retrospective study at 16 tertiary centers between January 2012 and November 2019.All patients who underwent POEM and experienced persistent or recurrent symptoms (Eckardt score>3) were included. The primary outcome was to compare the rates of clinical success (Eckardt score ≤3) between different management strategies. Results 99 patients (50 men [50.5%]; mean age 51.4 [standard deviation (SD) 16.2]) experienced clinical failure during the study period, with a mean (SD) Eckardt score of 5.4 (0.3). A total of 29 patients (32.2%) were managed conservatively and 70 (71%) underwent retreatment (repeat POEM 33 [33%], pneumatic dilation 30 [30%], and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) 7 [7.1%]). During a median follow-up of 10 (interquartile range 3-20) months, clinical success was highest in patients who underwent repeat POEM (25/33 [76%]; mean [SD] Eckardt score 2.1 [2.1]), followed by pneumatic dilation (18/30 [60%]; Eckardt score 2.8 [2.3]), and LHM (2/7 [29%]; Eckardt score 4 [1.8]; P =0.12). A total of 11 patients in the conservative group (37.9%; mean Eckardt score 4 [1.8]) achieved clinical success. Conclusion This study comprehensively assessed an international cohort of patients who underwent management of failed POEM. Repeat POEM and pneumatic dilation achieved acceptable clinical success, with excellent safety profiles

International Delphi Consensus Study on disposable single-use endoscopy:A path to clinical adoption

Background/objective:Increasing infectious rate estimates and low microbiological surveillance affect safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy globally. Single use endoscopes and accessories have been claimed to improve safety, but there is lack of data on their indication and sustainability. We aimed to identify a series of best practice recommendations for the use of single use endoscopes and accessories using a modified Delphi. Methods/design: Consensus statements for the use of single use endoscopy and accessories were developed using a modified Delphi process, utilizing an international endoscopist expert panel of 62 experts from 33 nations. The main steps in the process were selecting the consensus group, conducting systematic literature reviews, developing statements, and anonymous voting on the statements until consensus was reached. High-risk patients were defined as those with multi-drug-resistant infections, immunosuppressive medication or chemotherapy, post-transplantation, or with severe neutropenia. Results:Of the 26 statements that were voted upon through two rounds, 17 statements reached consensus. Category 1: single use accessories (8 statements), related to defining recommendations for the use of single use accessories in all patient populations or high-risk patients. Category 2: clinical indication for single use endoscopes (9 statements), including indications to high-risk patients, protecting the endoscope apparatus and contamination measures in endoscopy units. Category 3: technical factors (4 statements), related to superior performance and technical specifications with the new innovation. Category 4: environmental issues (2 statements), concerning mechanisms that reduce the detrimental burden to the environment. Category 5: financial implications (3 statements), related to healthcare policies, cost neutrality and other financial associations of single use endoscopy. Conclusions: This is the first international initiative in determining clinical indications for single use endoscopy and accessories. The study's findings should serve as a framework for future physicians to guide future research and aid the proper evidence-based indications for the implementation of single use endoscopes in clinical practice.</p

Strategy for the management of uncomplicated retinal detachments: the European vitreo-retinal society retinal detachment study report 1

OBJECTIVE: To study success and failure in the treatment of uncomplicated rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RRDs). DESIGN: Nonrandomized, multicenter retrospective study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-six surgeons from 48 countries spanning 5 continents provided information on the primary procedures for 7678 cases of RRDs including 4179 patients with uncomplicated RRDs. METHODS: Reported data included specific clinical findings, the method of repair, and the outcome after intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Final failure of retinal detachment repair (level 1 failure rate), remaining silicone oil at the study's conclusion (level 2 failure rate), and need for additional procedures to repair the detachment (level 3 failure rate). RESULTS: Four thousand one hundred seventy-nine uncomplicated cases of RRD were included. Combining phakic, pseudophakic, and aphakic groups, those treated with scleral buckle alone (n = 1341) had a significantly lower final failure rate than those treated with vitrectomy, with or without a supplemental buckle (n = 2723; P = 0.04). In phakic patients, final failure rate was lower in the scleral buckle group compared with those who had vitrectomy, with or without a supplemental buckle (P = 0.028). In pseudophakic patients, the failure rate of the initial procedure was lower in the vitrectomy group compared with the scleral buckle group (P = 3×10(-8)). There was no statistically significant difference in failure rate between segmental (n = 721) and encircling (n = 351) buckles (P = 0.5). Those who underwent vitrectomy with a supplemental scleral buckle (n = 488) had an increased failure rate compared with those who underwent vitrectomy alone (n = 2235; P = 0.048). Pneumatic retinopexy was found to be comparable with scleral buckle when a retinal hole was present (P = 0.65), but not in cases with a flap tear (P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of uncomplicated phakic retinal detachments, repair using scleral buckle may be a good option. There was no significant difference between segmental versus 360-degree buckle. For pseudophakic uncomplicated retinal detachments, the surgeon should balance the risks and benefits of vitrectomy versus scleral buckle and keep in mind that the single-surgery reattachment rate may be higher with vitrectomy. However, if a vitrectomy is to be performed, these data suggest that a supplemental buckle is not helpful