SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.99 issue3Rectal cancer staging with endoscopic ultrasonography: correlation with pathological stagingPrimary combined carcinoid and adenocarcinoma of the ileum associated with transitional carcinoma of the bladder. Single case report author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand




Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google


Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas

Print version ISSN 1130-0108


VARAS, M. J. et al. Intervenionist endoscopic ultrasonography: A retrospective analysis of 60 procedures. Rev. esp. enferm. dig. [online]. 2007, vol.99, n.3, pp.138-144. ISSN 1130-0108.

Introduction and objective: interventionist endoscopic ultrasonography is increasingly used because of its growing indications. We present here our retrospective and initial experience (60 procedures) with endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) both for diagnosis (EUS-FNA) and therapy (EUS-guided tumorectomy and mucosectomy). Patients and method: in a group with 27 cases including 10 submucosal tumors (SMTs), 2 adenopathies, and 15 potential pancreatic tumors (8 pancreatic cancers), a sectorial EUS-FNA at 7.5 MHz was performed for diagnosis prior to therapy (mainly surgical). A pancreatic pseudocyst was drained. In 21 cases with 27 SMTs (10 patients with 13 carcinoids) a tumorectomy was carried out using the standard loop or assisted polypectomy technique with submucosal injection, and in a few cases (two) using elastic band ligation following a radial EUS at 7.5, 12, or 20 MHz. In 6 cases of superficial gastroesophageal cancer or gastric dysplasia an endoscopic mucosal resection (classic EMR) was performed after EUS or MPs at 7.5 and 20 MHz. Fifty-five patients with 60 lesions, 29 femaes and 26 males with a mean age of 60 years (30-88 years) were retrospectively analyzed. Results: diagnostic pecision (P), sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for EUS-FNA was 85, 83, 100, 100, and 43%, respectively, when comparing results with specimen histology. P was higher for adenopathies (100%) and pancreatic tumors (87%) than for SMTs (80%). No complications arose, except for one episode of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) (3.7%) that was endoscopically and satisfactorily treated in a gastric SMT. In the group with 21 patients (10 carcinoids with 13 tumors) 27 SMTs were endoscopically treated by tumorectomy with no perforation and only 2 UGIBs (7.4%), one of them self-limited, recorded. Endoscopic resection was complete in 92% of cases. No complications occurred with classic EMR, and all patients are still alive with no evidence of relapse, either local or metastatic. In this group the rate of complete resections was 100%. Conclusions: EUS-FNA is a safe technique with high diagnostic accuracy. EUS-guided tumorectomy and mucosectomy are also safe and effective techniques in the endoscopic management of these tumors.

Keywords : EUS-guided FNA, echoendoscopy- or endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tumorectomy and mucosectomy; Interventionist and/or therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )


Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License