Biopsy Sampling in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Survey from 10 Tertiary Referral Centres Across Europe

Study on the Effect of Different Endoscopic Auxiliary Treatment of Gastric Mucosal Microtumor

Objective

To explore the effect of endoscopy in the treatment of gastric mucosal microtumors.

Methods

A total of 229 patients with gastric mucosal microtumors were treated in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2021. All patients were divided into three groups group A, group B, and group C. Group A was treated with a transparent cap combined with circle-assisted endoscopic resection, group B with ligator combined with circle-assisted endoscopic resection, and group C with endoscopic mucosal tumor resection. The effects of the three groups were observed.

Results

There were 47 patients in group A, 17 males, and 30 females, aged 36-69 years, with an average age of 55.6 ± 9.2 years. There were 54 patients in group B, 18 males, and 36 females, aged 38-72 years, with an average age of 57.6 ± 7.7 years. There were 128 patients in group C, 29 males, and 99 females, aged 33-78 years, with an average age of 55.6 ± 8.4 years. There is no significant difference in age and sex between group A, group B, and group C (P > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in group B (66.7%) was significantly higher than that in group A (57.4%) and group C (53.9%) (all P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in group A (57.4%) was higher than that in group C (53.9%), and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Endoscopic mucosal resection and ligation combined with circle-assisted endoscopic resection are effective and safe in the treatment of gastric mucosal microtumors, but it needs to be combined with targeted nursing measures. The transparent cap combined with ring-assisted endoscopic resection has a significant effect on the treatment of gastric mucosal micromasses, reducing operative complications.

Interventions to improve the performance of upper GI endoscopy quality indicators

The promotion of quality and best practices in gastroenterology and endoscopy is an ongoing effort. For upper GI endoscopy, quality indicators derived from clinical studies and expert consensus have been long established but remain variably obtained. To date, data on interventions aimed to improve these indicators are scarce. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify interventions and measures demonstrated to improve the performance of previously established upper endoscopy quality indicators. We also identified evidence gaps and opportunities for improvement in this area.