• Clinical Endoscopy
• /
• v.57 no.1
• /
• pp.82-88
• /
• 2024

Background/Aims: Guide tube-assisted endoscopy for procedures that require repeated endoscopic access is safer and more effective than conventional endoscopy. However, its effectiveness has not been confirmed in animal studies. We assessed the usefulness of guide tube-assisted endoscopic procedures in an in vivo porcine model. Methods: Five different guide tube-assisted endoscopic procedures were performed by experienced endoscopists on a pig weighing 32 kg. To evaluate the efficacy of these procedures, we compared the endoscopic approach time when a guide tube was used to that when it was not. Additional endoscopic procedures using a guide tube were performed, including multiple foreign body extractions, multiple polypectomies, and multiple submucosal dissections. To evaluate safety, we compared the insertion force into the proximal esophagus between the guide tube and conventional overtube methods. Results: Using the endoscopic approach with a guide tube required a shorter average approach time to reach the three target lesions than when using the endoscopic approach without a guide tube (p<0.001). Compared to the conventional overtube method, the guide tube method produced a lower average resistance during insertion into the upper esophagus (p<0.001). Conclusions: Guide tube-assisted endoscopic procedures are effective and safe for repeated endoscopic access in an in vivo porcine model.

• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.381-394
• /
• 2022

Purpose: Gastric neoplasia is a common manifestation of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). This study aimed to elucidate the clinical characteristics, endoscopic features including fundic gland polyposis (FGPsis), and treatment outcomes of gastric neoplasms (GNs) in patients with FAP. Materials and Methods: A total of 35 patients diagnosed with FAP, including nine patients from four pedigrees who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), were investigated regarding patient characteristics, GN morphology, and treatment outcomes. Results: Twenty-one patients (60.0%) had 38 GNs; 33 (86.8%) and 5 (13.2%) were histologically diagnosed with adenocarcinoma and adenoma, respectively. There were no specific patient characteristics related to GNs.Nodule-type GNs were more prevalent in patients with FGP than without (52.2% vs. 0.0%, P=0.002) in the upper body of the stomach. Conversely, depressed-type GNs were fewer in patients with FGPsis than in those without (13.0% vs. 73.3%, P<0.001). Slightly elevated-type GNs were observed in both groups (34.8% vs. 20.0%, P=0.538). Even within pedigrees, the background gastric mucosa and types of GNs varied. In total, 24 GNs were treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and eight with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). EMR was selected for GNs with FGPsis because of the technical difficulty of ESD, resulting in a lower en bloc resection rate (62.5% vs. 100%, P=0.014). Conclusions: Our study indicates the necessity of routine EGD surveillance in patients diagnosed with FAP. Notably, the morphology and location of GNs differed between patients with and without FGPsis. Endoscopic treatment and outcomes require more attention in cases of FGPsis.