Fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation during duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection using the water pressure method. Issue 3 (16th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Takada, Yoshihisa; Hirose, Takashi; Nishida, Kazuki; Kakushima, Naomi; Furukawa, Kazuhiro; Furune, Satoshi; Ishikawa, Eri; Sawada, Tsunaki; Maeda, Keiko; Yamamura, Takeshi; Ishikawa, Takuya; Ohno, Eizaburo; Nakamura, Masanao; Honda, Takashi; Ishigami, Masatoshi; Kawashima, Hiroki; Fujishiro, Mitsuhiro
• Is Part Of: Digestive endoscopy. Volume 34:Issue 3(2022)
• Page Start: 526
• Page End: 534
• Publication Date: 2021-07-16
• Subjects: adverse events -- duodenum -- endoscopic submucosal dissection -- underwater -- water pressure; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; Digestive System Diseases -- diagnosis -- Periodicals; Digestive System Diseases -- therapy -- Periodicals; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; 616.3
• DOI: 10.1111/den.14070
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0915-5635

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the duodenum is challenging. The water pressure method (WP‐ESD) has been developed with a decreased rate of perforation. However, details of perioperative adverse events of WP‐ESD are unknown. The purpose of this study was to clarify the frequency and related factors of fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation during WP‐ESD. Methods: A chart‐based retrospective analysis was performed on 43 patients who underwent duodenal WP‐ESD. The saline volume given into the body was calculated in all cases. All adverse events during WP‐ESD until 6 weeks were extracted, and factors related to intraoperative fecal incontinence or oral regurgitation were analyzed. The frequency of fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation was also compared to those of 83 conventional ESD cases. Results: In WP‐ESD, intraoperative fecal incontinence occurred in 12 (28%), oral regurgitation in six (14%), and aspiration pneumonia in one patient. For fecal incontinence, the infusion speed (saline volume divided by resection time) around 17 mL/min was a significant factor in multivariable analysis. For oral regurgitation, only tumor size was a significant factor in univariate analysis ( P = 0.027). Significant difference was observed in the frequency of fecal incontinence between WP‐ESD and conventional ESD (28% vs. 0%, P < 0.001), but no difference was observed in oral regurgitation or aspiration pneumonia. Conclusions: Intraoperative fecal incontinence is a unique adverse event of WP‐ESD related to the infusion speed. WP‐ESD did not pose a risk for oral regurgitation, but we should be aware of the risk in large tumor cases.