Uneven distribution of hepatic copper concentration and diagnostic value of double-sample biopsy in Wilson's disease

Background and aims. Determination of hepatic copper (Cu) concentration is important in Wilson's disease (WD) diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate uneven distribution of liver Cu concentration and the utility of double-sample biopsy in WD diagnosis. Methods. Thirty-five WD patients (20 male; mean age 41 ± 9 years) were enrolled in the study and double-liver samples for biopsy were obtained. A further 30 WD patients, in whom Cu determination was performed using single-liver samples, were also enrolled as controls. Results. A marked difference in hepatic Cu concentration was observed between the two sample groups (p < 0.0001). This difference is statistically significant for all levels of liver fibrosis (p < 0.001) and for the comparison of hepatic and neurological phenotypes (p < 0.01). The sensitivity of the Cu concentrations obtained from the double-sample biopsies for the conventional cut-off value of 250 mg/g dry weight of tissue was 85.7% compared to 80% in the single-sample biopsies. By lowering the cut-off value from 250 to 50 μg/g of dry weight of tissue, the sensitivity of Cu content to diagnose WD increased to 97% for double-sample liver biopsy compared to 93% for single-sample liver biopsy. Conclusions. Liver Cu content was unevenly distributed in the WD subjects, irrespective of fibrosis levels and disease phenotypes; hence WD can be misdiagnosed using single-sample liver Cu measurement. Double-sample biopsy sensitivity is greater than that obtained with single-sample biopsy and should therefore be considered to evaluate liver Cu concentration at initial diagnosis in all patients

Underwater endoscopic colorectal polyp resection: Feasibility in everyday clinical practice

Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection is well-established for resecting flat or sessile benign colon polyps. The novel underwater endoscopic mucosal resection eschews submucosal injection prior to endoscopic mucosal resection. Reports about underwater endoscopic mucosal resection were limited to small series of single and/or tertiary-care referral centers, with single or supervised operators. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine feasibility and efficacy of underwater resection of polyps of any morphology (underwater polypectomy, here includes underwater endoscopic mucosal resection) in routine clinical practice. Methods: This study involved a comparison of colonoscopy records of two community hospitals (January 2015\u2013December 2016) for underwater polypectomy (n = 195) and gas insufflation polypectomy (n = 186). Results: Comparable demographics, procedural data, overall distribution, morphology and size of resected lesions, number of en bloc and R0 resections (any polyp morphology and size); exception: overall, underwater polypectomy pedunculated polyps were significantly larger than those in the gas insufflation polypectomy group, p = 0.030. Underwater polypectomy (median, min) resection time was significantly shorter than gas insufflation polypectomy: sessile and flat polyps 6\u20139 mm, 0.8 vs 2.7 (p = 0.040); 10\u201319 mm, 2.0 vs 3.3 (p = 0.025), respectively; pedunculated polyps 6\u201319 mm, 0.8 vs 3.3 (p < 0.001). Underwater polypectomy resection of pedunculated polyps 6\u201319 mm showed significantly less immediate bleeding: 11.1% vs 1.5%, respectively (p = 0.031). Conclusions: Underwater polypectomy can be efficaciously used in routine clinical practice for the complete resection of colon polyps, with several advantages over gas insufflation polypectomy

Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations

Background and Aims: Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR. Methods: Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements. Results: In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11). Conclusions: The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice