The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i. e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, where performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time that small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy,

BackgroundColonic lipomas (CL) are rare benign adipose tumours usually found incidentally during colonoscopy. Endoscopic resection of symptomatic large CL remains controversial, since significant rates of perforation have been reported. In recent years, a novel technique for removal of large CL has been described, consisting of looping and ligating the lipoma with a nylon snare. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the “loop and let go” technique for large colon lipomas in a large case series.MethodsConsecutive patients referred to our institution for colonoscopy were eligible for the study. The diagnosis of CL was confirmed endoscopically by “pillow” and “naked fat” signs. Following diagnosis, lipomas were looped and ligated by endoloop. Follow-up colonoscopies were scheduled at 1- and 3-months interval.ResultsA total of 11 patients with large CL were enrolled in study. The indications for the colonoscopy included altered bowel habits (7 patients, 64%), screening for colorectal neoplasm (3 pts, 27%) and lower gastrointestinal bleeding (1 pts, 9%). The median lesion size was 3 cm (range 2,5-6 cm). Lesions were located at the hepatic flexure in 4 patients (36%), cecum and ascending colon (4 pts, 36%), rectosigmoid (2 pts, 18%) and transverse colon (1 pts, 9%). There were no immediate and late complications. On follow-up (median follow-up time 11,9 months, range 8–24), there was one small residual lipoma (<1 cm).ConclusionThe results of this study confirm that “loop-and-let-go” technique is safe and efficacious treatment of large colonic lipomas.

Background and study aims  The choice of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors (NASDTs) is challenging and the benefits of ESD remain unclear. The aim was to comparatively analyze the feasibility, outcomes and safety of these techniques in these lesions. Patients and methods  This is an observational and retrospective study. All consecutive patients presenting with NASDTs who underwent EMR or ESD between 2005 and 2017 were included. The following main outcomes were comparatively evaluated: en-bloc and complete (R0) resection rates, and local recurrence. Secondary outcomes were perforation and delayed bleeding. Results  One hundred sixty-six tumors in 150 patients (age: 66 years, range: 31 – 83, 42.7 % males) were resected by ESD (n = 37) or EMR (n = 129) and included. The median procedure time (81 vs. 50 min, P  = 0.007) and tumor size (25 vs. 20 mm, P  = 0.01) were higher in the ESD group. The global malignancy rate was 50.3 %. There were no differences in en-bloc resection (29.7 % vs. 44.2 %, P  = 0.115), complete resection (19.4 % vs. 35.5 %, P  = 0.069), and local recurrence (14.7 % vs. 16.7 %, P  = 0.788) rates. Tumor size was associated with recurrence (28 vs. 20 mm, P  = 0.008), with a median follow-up of 6.5 months. Focal recurrence (n = 22, 13.3 %) was treated endoscopically in 86.4 %. En-bloc resection in the ESD group was comparable in large ( ≥ 20 mm) and small lesions (27.6 % vs. 37.5 %, P  = 0.587), while this outcome decreased significantly in large lesions resected by EMR (17.4 % vs. 75 %, P  < 0.001). Nine perforations were confirmed in 6 lesions (16.2 %) resected by ESD and 3 (2.3 %) by EMR ( P  = 0.001). Endoscopic therapy was successful in all but 1 patient (88.9 %) presenting with a delayed perforation. Conclusions  ESD may be an alternative to EMR and surgery in selected NASDTs, such as large duodenal tumors where EMR achieves low en-bloc resection rates and the local recurrence may be higher. However, this technique may have a higher risk of perforations.