No abstract

Subepithelial masses of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are a frequent source of referral for endosonographic evaluation. Subepithelial tumors most often appear as protuberances in the GI tract with normal overlying mucosa. When there is a need to obtain a sample of the mass for diagnosis, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) - guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is superior to other studies and should be the first choice to investigate any subepithelial lesion. When the decision is made to perform EUS-guided FNA several technical factors must be considered. The type and size of the needle chosen can affect diagnostic accuracy, adequacy of sample size and number of passes needed. The use of a stylet or suction and a fanning or standard technique during EUS-guided FNA are other factors that must be considered. Another method proposed to improve the efficacy of EUS-guided FNA is having an on-site cytopathologist or cytotechnician. Large or well-differentiated tumors may be more difficult to diagnose by standard EUS-FNA and the use of a biopsy needle can be used to acquire a histopathology sample. This can allow preservation of tissue architecture and cellularity of the lesion and may lead to a more definitive diagnosis. Alternatives to FNA such as taking bite-on-bite samples and endoscopic submucosal resection (ESMR) have been studied. Comparison of these two techniques found that ESMR has a significantly higher diagnostic yield. Most complications associated with EUS-FNA such as perforation, infection and pancreatitis are rare and the severity and incidence of these adverse events is not known. Controversy exists as to the optimal method in which to perform EUS-FNA and larger prospective trials are needed.

Background ERCP, especially therapeutic, is difficult in patients with Billroth II surgical reconstruction and is associated with a higher rate of complications. This has led to controversy on the choice between a forward-viewing and side-viewing endoscope for performing the procedure. A previous case series from Asia reported a high rate of success with a cap-fitted ERCP technique. To our knowledge, the utility of cap-assisted ERCP with a forward-viewing gastroscope when other techniques fail has not been reported. We describe and demonstrate a novel rescue approach using a cap-fitted, forward-viewing gastroscope in patients with Billroth II anatomy, when attempts with duodenoscopes, pediatric colonoscopes, and gastroscopes previously failed. Methods Retrospective case series. Inclusion criteria were: (a) documented Billroth II anatomy; and (b) use of cap-assisted ERCP as a rescue intervention on the first endoscopic encounter after failed attempts to perform ERCP with a duodenoscope. Patients were excluded if they successfully underwent ERCP with a duodenoscope. One advanced endoscopist and one advanced endoscopy fellow performed all but one of the procedures.Results Five cap-assisted ERCP procedures were performed in three patients with Billroth II anatomy. A wide variety of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic maneuvers were technically feasible and successful, including the endoscopic treatment of an afferent limb perforation caused by a duodenoscope. Conclusions Cap-assisted ERCP is a novel and underutilized technique that adds to the armamentarium of experienced therapeutic endoscopists. This approach may help ensure a successful endoscopic outcome and spare patients with Billroth II anatomy a percutaneous or surgical approach when ERCP with a duodenoscope, pediatric colonoscope or non-cap-fitted gastroscope fails.

No abstract