Endoscopic-Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and the Role of the Cytopathologist in Solid Pancreatic Lesion Diagnosis

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is the most sensitive imaging modality for solid pancreatic lesions. The specificity, however, is low (about 75%). It can be increased to 100% with an accuracy of 95% by the addition of fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Cytopathology plays an important role. The final diagnosis is based upon the correlation of clinical, EUS, and cytologic features. A close interaction with the cytopathologist is required in improving the diagnostic yield. In this paper, we present an overview of the role of EUS-guided FNA and importance of close interaction with the cytopathologist. Day to day examples of different solid pancreatic lesions have been presented at the end

A task and performance analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) surgery

BACKGROUND: ESD is an endoscopic technique for en bloc resection of gastrointestinal lesions. ESD is a widely-used in Japan and throughout Asia, but not as prevalent in Europe or the US. The procedure is technically challenging and has higher adverse events (bleeding, perforation) compared to endoscopic mucosal resection. Inadequate training platforms and lack of established training curricula have restricted its wide acceptance in the US. Thus, we aim to develop a Virtual Endoluminal Surgery Simulator (VESS) for objective ESD training and assessment. In this work, we performed task and performance analysis of ESD surgeries. METHODS: We performed a detailed colorectal ESD task analysis and identified the critical ESD steps for lesion identification, marking, injection, circumferential cutting, dissection, intraprocedural complication management, and post-procedure examination. We constructed a hierarchical task tree that elaborates the order of tasks in these steps. Furthermore, we developed quantitative ESD performance metrics. We measured task times and scores of 16 ESD surgeries performed by four different endoscopic surgeons. RESULTS: The average time of the marking, injection, and circumferential cutting phases are 203.4 (σ: 205.46), 83.5 (σ: 49.92), 908.4 s. (σ: 584.53), respectively. Cutting the submucosal layer takes most of the time of overall ESD procedure time with an average of 1394.7 s (σ: 908.43). We also performed correlation analysis (Pearson's test) among the performance scores of the tasks. There is a moderate positive correlation (R = 0.528, p = 0.0355) between marking scores and total scores, a strong positive correlation (R = 0.7879, p = 0.0003) between circumferential cutting and submucosal dissection and total scores. Similarly, we noted a strong positive correlation (R = 0.7095, p = 0.0021) between circumferential cutting and submucosal dissection and marking scores. CONCLUSIONS: We elaborated ESD tasks and developed quantitative performance metrics used in analysis of actual surgery performance. These ESD metrics will be used in future validation studies of our VESS simulator

Outcomes of Endoscopic-Ultrasound-Guided Cholangiopancreatography: A Literature Review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can fail in 3–10% of the cases even in experienced hands. Although percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) and surgery are the traditional alternatives, there are morbidity and mortality associated with both. In this paper, we have discussed the efficacy and safety of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided cholangiopancreatography (EUS-CP) in decompression of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The overall technical and clinical success rates are around 90% for biliary and 70% for pancreatic duct drainage. The overall EUS-CP complication rate is around 15%. EUS-CP is, however, a technically challenging procedure and should be performed by an experienced endoscopist skilled in both EUS and ERCP. Same session EUS-CP as failed initial ERCP is practical and may result in avoidance of additional procedures. With increasing availability of endoscopists trained in both ERCP and EUS, the role of EUS-CP is likely to grow in clinical practice

Is there any difference in outcomes between long pigtail and short flanged prophylactic pancreatic duct stents?

OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement has been shown to reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) especially in high-risk patients. However, there is no consensus on the best type of PD stent. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the differences in the outcomes between long (\u3e3 cm) pigtail and short (≤3 cm) flanged 4 Fr Freeman Pancreatic Flexi-Stents in preventing PEP. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all ERCP procedures performed between 08/01/2006 and 10/01/2007 by one of two experienced endoscopists (\u3e5 years of experience) with the assistance of a trainee. Patient data was collected for indications, risk factors for PEP, type and reason for PD stent, complications, and any mortality. The PD stent was removed endoscopically if it was still in place on abdominal X-ray done 2 weeks post-ERCP. The data was analyzed with Student\u27s t test, Chi-square, and ANOVA tests by using SPSS software version 15.0. RESULTS: Out of a total of 753 ERCP procedures, 179 (23.8%) required either long or short prophylactic PD stents. The incidence of PEP was 3.7% versus 13.6% for long and short stent groups, respectively (p=0.019). Spontaneous stent dislodgement rate was 95.4% versus 81.8% for long and short stent groups, respectively (p=0.007). There was no difference in non-pancreatic complications between the two stent groups. There was no procedure-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Long (\u3e3 cm) pigtail PD stent due to their specific design showed better outcomes as compared to short (\u3c3 \u3ecm) flanged PD stent in preventing PEP and spontaneous stent dislodgement rates. However, further prospective trials are needed