Background and study aims  The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) represents a novel endoscopic treatment method for lesions unresectable with conventional endoscopic techniques. The overall aim of this study was to evaluate technical success and in toto resection rates, recurrence rates, as well as immediate or late complications in patients who underwent polyp removal with the FTRD. Patients and methods  Data from a prospectively collected database of 12 patients who underwent 13 over-the-scope clip-based full-thickness resections between June 2015 and June 2017 were analyzed. Follow-up endoscopy was performed in 11 out of 12 patients. Results  13 full-thickness resections were performed in 7 males and 5 females (mean age 64.3 ± 6.3 years). Mean size of the lesions removed with FTRD was 17 ± 4 mm. Location was rectum (n = 6), cecum (n = 2), ascending colon (n = 2), left flexure (n = 1) and right flexure (n = 2). Mean procedure time was 68 ± 35 minutes and mean hospital stay was 2.5 ± 1.2 days. 2 patients developed post-polypectomy syndrome, which resolved after conservative treatment. No perforations and no immediate surgical revision were needed. Histology of the 13 lesions removed with FTRD showed 5 adenomas with low grade intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN), 4 high grade IEN, 1 fibrosis, 1 fibrosis without dysplasia and 2 adenocarcinomas. Technical success was achieved in all procedures (13/13, 100 %). R0 resection was achieved in 10/12 patients (83.3 %). 2 patients underwent surgery because of recurrence or not evaluable margins. In 1 patient no residual malignancy was proven in histological examination, in the other patient residual low grade IEN adenoma. Conclusion  FTRD is a minimally invasive approach with good success rate of complete resection and minimal side effects.

No abstract

Both simulators (Endo-Trainer, compactEASIE) are excellent educational tools for interventional endoscopy with a high level of acceptance. The easy-to-handle, "lightweight" compactEASIE is a significant, progress tool for the future.

OTSC application yields a high rate of endoscopic perforation closure in patients with macroscopic gastrointestinal perforation, even in an emergency setting, representing an alternative to surgery, especially when the size of the lesion is not too large and when vital or solid perforation margins are expected.

A 1-day training course on endoscopic hemostasis using the compactEASIE simulator is capable of improving the performance of hemostasis procedures. Long-term effects of repeated training sessions are currently subject of collaborative studies in New York and France.

BACKGROUND Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common indication for endoscopy. For refractory cases, hemostatic powders (HP) represent “touch-free” agents. AIM To analyze short term (ST-within 72 h-) and long-term (LT-within 30 d-) success for achieving hemostasis with HP and to directly compare the two agents Hemospray (HS) and Endoclot (EC). METHODS HP was applied in 154 consecutive patients (mean age 67 years) with GI bleeding. Patients were followed up for 1 mo (mean follow-up: 3.2 mo). RESULTS Majority of applications were in upper GI tract (89%) with following bleeding sources: peptic ulcer disease (35%), esophageal varices (7%), tumor bleeding (11.7%), reflux esophagitis (8.7%), diffuse bleeding and erosions (15.3%). Overall ST success was achieved in 125 patients (81%) and LT success in 81 patients (67%). Re-bleeding occurred in 27% of all patients. In 72 patients (47%), HP was applied as a salvage hemostatic therapy, here ST and LT success were 81% and 64%, with re-bleeding in 32%. As a primary hemostatic therapy, ST and LT success were 82% and 69%, with re-bleeding occurring in 22%. HS was more frequently applied for upper GI bleeding ( P = 0.04) CONCLUSION Both HP allow for effective hemostasis with no differences in ST, LT success and re-bleeding.

No abstract

No abstract