Radiation-free one-stage bedside endoscopic stone removal and biliary drainage for severe acute cholangitis (SAC) caused by choledocholithiasis in intensive care unit (ICU) has not been reported. Herein, we introduce our preliminary experience of such intervention. Radiation-free bedside digital cholangioscope-assisted one-stage endoscopic stone removal and biliary drainage was performed in an urgent manner. Data on clinical outcomes and follow-up from thirty patients were retrospectively analyzed. Time interval was 7.6 ± 4.7 (2–18) h between ICU admission and endoscopic intervention, and was 35.5 ± 14.5 (5–48) h between the seizure and endoscopic intervention. A 100% technical success was achieved. Except for one mild pancreatitis, no other complication occurred. Patients showed good responses to endoscopic interventions, which were reflected by ameliorated disease severities and laboratory findings. Time lengths of ICU stay and total in-hospital stay were 8.7 ± 4.9 (2–23) days and 14.5 ± 7.4 (5–39) days, respectively. In-hospital mortality occurred in three patients. According to a 6-month follow-up, two patients died of pneumonia and acute myocardial infarction. No SAC and/or biliary stone residual occurred. The current intervention demonstrated favorable results compared to traditional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Our study provides a novel bedside endoscopic intervention method for SAC caused by choledocholithiasis.
Objective:To develop a robotic digestive endoscope system (RDES) and to evaluate its feasibility, safety and control performance by experiments.Methods:The RDES was designed based on the master-slave control system, which consisted of 3 parts: the integrated endoscope, including a knob and button robotic control system integrated with a gastroscope; the robotic mechanical arm system, including the base and arm, as well as the endoscopic advance-retreat control device (force-feedback function was designed) and the endoscopic axial rotation control device; the control console, including a master manipulator and an image monitor. The operator sit far away from the endoscope and controlled the master manipulator to bend the end of the endoscope and to control advance, retract and rotation of the endoscope. The air supply, water supply, suction, figure fixing and motion scaling switching was realized by pressing buttons on the master manipulator. In the endoscopy experiments performed on live pigs, 5 physicians each were in the beginner and advanced groups. Each operator operated RDES and traditional endoscope (2 weeks interval) to perform porcine gastroscopy 6 times, comparing the examination time. In the experiment of endoscopic circle drawing on the inner wall of the simulated stomach model, each operator in the two groups operated RDES 1∶1 motion scaling, 5∶1 motion scaling and ordinary endoscope to complete endoscopic circle drawing 6 times, comparing the completion time, accuracy (i.e. trajectory deviation) and workload.Results:RDES was operated normally with good force feedback function. All porcine in vivo gastroscopies were successful, without mucosal injury, bleeding or perforation. In beginner and advanced groups, the examination time of both RDES and ordinary endoscopy tended to decrease as the number of operations increased, but the decrease in time was greater for operating RDES than for operating ordinary endoscope (beginner group P=0.033; advanced group P=0.023). In the beginner group, the operators operating RDES with 1∶1 motion scaling or 5∶1 motion scaling to complete endoscopic circle drawing had shorter completion time [1.68 (1.40, 2.17) min, 1.73 (1.47, 2.37) min VS 4.13 (2.27, 5.16) min, H=32.506, P<0.001], better trajectory deviation (0.50±0.11 mm, 0.46±0.11 mm VS 0.82±0.26 mm, F=38.999, P<0.001], and less workload [42.00 (30.00, 50.33) points, 43.33 (35.33, 54.00) points VS 52.67 (48.67, 63.33) points, H=20.056, P<0.001] than operating ordinary endoscope. In the advanced group, the operators operating RDES with 1∶1 or 5∶1 motion scaling to complete endoscopic circle drawing had longer completion time than operating ordinary endoscope [1.72 (1.37, 2.53) min, 1.57 (1.25, 2.58) min VS 1.15 (0.86, 1.58) min, H=13.233, P=0.001], but trajectory deviation [0.47 (0.13, 0.57) mm, 0.44 (0.39, 0.58) mm VS 0.52 (0.42, 0.59) mm, H=3.202, P=0.202] and workload (44.62±21.77 points, 41.24±12.57 points VS 44.71±17.92 points, F=0.369, P=0.693) were not different from those of the ordinary endoscope. Conclusion:The RDES enables remote control, greatly reducing the endoscopists' workload. Additionally, it gives full play to the cooperative motion function of the large and small endoscopic knobs, making the control more flexible. Finally, it increases motion scaling switching function to make the control of endoscope more flexible and more accurate. It is also easy for beginners to learn and master, and can shorten the training period. So it can provide the possibility of remote endoscopic control and fully automated robotic endoscope.
Objective:To evaluate the clinical efficacy of single-wide-tunnel endoscopic submucosal dissection with single-clip-line traction (W-ESTD) for the treatment of early esophageal cancer and precancerous lesions with large area (≥ 3/4 circumference).Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed on patient data of large early esophageal cancer or precancerous lesions treated with digestive endoscopy at the Affiliated Huai'an NO.1 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from January 2018 to January 2023. Patients were divided into W-ESTD group and endoscopic submucosal double-tunnel dissection (D-ESTD) group based on the technique used. Surgical speed, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, curative resection rate, intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.Results:A total of 44 patients with large early esophageal cancer or precancerous lesions were included in this study, including 23 cases in the W-ESTD group and 21 cases in the D-ESTD group. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline data between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operating speeds of W-ESTD and D-ESTD groups were 29.97±11.89 mm2/min and 22.65±6.30 mm2/min, respectively, with significant difference ( t=2.580, P=0.014). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of en bloc resection rate [95.7% (22/23) VS 100.0% (21/21), P=1.000], R0 resection rate [87.0% (20/23) VS 90.5% (19/21), P=1.000], or curative resection rate [73.9% (17/23) VS 85.7% (18/21), P=0.462]. No recurrence occurred. Intraoperative muscular injury occurred in 3 cases in the W-ESTD group and 5 cases in the D-ESTD group, and postoperative esophageal stricture occurred in 11 cases and 8 cases respectively, with no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Compared to D-ESTD, W-ESTD can significantly improve surgical speed and demonstrate itself as a safe and effective approach for treating large early esophageal cancer and precancerous lesions.
Objective:To evaluate the effect of linaclotide combined with compound polyethylene glycol (PEG) on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.Methods:This trial was a multicenter randomized controlled study. Subjects scheduled for colonoscopy in 3 digestive endoscopy centers of The First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanxi Province People's Hospital and the 900th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force from November 2021 to March 2022 were randomly assigned to 3 groups using completely random method. The bowel preparation of group A was 3-day linaclotide with 3 L PEG, that of group B was only 3 L PEG, and group C was 3-day linaclotide with 2 L PEG. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation, and the secondary outcomes were the rate of excellent bowel preparation, the completion rate of bowel preparation and the willingness to repeat the corresponding bowel preparation regimen.Results:A total of 130 subjects were enrolled, including 46 in group A, 43 in group B, and 41 in group C. There was no significant difference among the 3 groups in the rate of adequate bowel preparation [95.7% (44/46), 93.0% (40/43) and 95.1% (39/41), χ2=0.465, P=0.893], the rate of excellent bowel preparation [43.5%(20/46), 25.6% (11/43) and 34.1% (14/41), χ2=3.151, P=0.207], or the completion rate of bowel preparation [95.7% (44/46), 95.3% (41/43) and 100.0% (41/41), χ2=1.909, P=0.544]. However, there were significant differences in the willingness to repeat the corresponding bowel preparation regimen among the 3 groups [89.1% (41/46), 74.4% (32/43) and 100.0% (41/41), χ2=12.862, P=0.002]. The bowel preparation completion and willingness rate of subjects in group C were both 100.0%, which were higher than those in group A and group B. Conclusion:Linaclotide is able to improve the quality of bowel preparation and reduce the amount of PEG.
Objective:To compare the role and efficacy of serum Helicobacter pylori ( HP) antibody combined with pepsinogen (PG) (ABC method), serum PG combined with gastrin-17 (G-17) (new ABC method) and a new gastric cancer screening scoring system for early gastric cancer screening in healthy people. Methods:Serological examinations were performed on healthy people who underwent physical examination and gastroscopy at the Physical Examination Center of Shanghai Songjiang District Central Hospital from January 2019 to December 2021. The population were divided into low-risk population, medium-risk population and high-risk population based on the above three primary screening methods for gastric cancer. Using gastroscopy and biopsy pathology as the gold standard, the ratio of each risk stratification and the detection rate of gastric cancer of the three screening methods were calculated. Advantages and disadvantages of the three methods were evaluated.Results:A total of 3 199 people who completed physical examination and gastroscopy were included in the study. Ten cases (0.31%) of esophageal cancer were detected by endoscopy, all of whom were early esophageal cancer. Thirty-seven cases (1.16%) of gastric cancer were detected,and the detection rate of early gastric cancer was 86.49%(32/37). The three gastric cancer screening methods were used to evaluate the risk of gastric cancer. According to ABC method, there were 1 853 cases (7.92%) in the low-risk group, 1 339 cases (41.86%) in the medium-risk group, and 7 cases (0.22%) in the high-risk group. The detection rates of gastric cancer were 0.97% (18/1 853), 1.42% (19/1 339), and 0.00%, respectively. According to the new ABC method, there were 2 362 cases (73.84%) in the low-risk group, 804 cases (25.13%) in the medium-risk group, and 33 cases (1.03%) in the high-risk group. The detection rates of gastric cancer were 1.14% (27/2 362), 1.24% (10/804), and 0.00%, respectively. According to the new gastric cancer screening scoring system, there were 1 448 cases (45.26%) in the low-risk group, 1 213 cases (37.92%) in the medium-risk group and 538 cases (16.82%) in the high-risk group. The detection rates of gastric cancer were 0.28% (4/1 448), 1.32% (16/1 213) and 3.16% (17/538), respectively. The detection rate of gastric cancer in the medium- and high-risk groups in total was significantly higher than that in the low-risk group with significant difference ( χ 2=17.935, P<0.001). The ROC curve showed that the AUC of the ABC method, the new ABC method and the new gastric cancer screening scoring system were 0.546, 0.503 and 0.760, respectively. The AUC of the new gastric cancer screening scoring system was significantly higher than those of the ABC method and the new ABC method, and the differences were statistically significant ( P<0.001). Conclusion:The detection rate of gastric cancer in the medium- and high-risk groups of the new gastric cancer screening scoring system is higher than that of the low-risk group, and the missed diagnosis rate of the new gastric cancer screening scoring system is lower than those of the ABC method and the new ABC method. The screening score is of high value for early gastric cancer screening in the healthy population.
