|
Olympus medical systems corp.(omsc) received a literature titled "reduced recurrence rate with a targeted approach in uncomplicated appendicitis treated with endoscopic direct vs retrograde therapy." abstract: background: endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (erat) offers an appendix-preserving approach; however, visual and specificity challenges persist.Conversely, endoscopic direct appendicitis therapy (edat) provides direct visual observation with diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities.Aim: to assess the efficacy and feasibility of edat and compare them with those of erat in uncomplicated appendicitis.Methods: in this retrospective cohort study, patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis and treated with erat or edat between january 2021 and november 2024 were reviewed.The primary outcome was intervention success.Secondary outcomes were guidewire use, stent placement, hospitalization duration, recurrence, and endoscopic direct-view features.Outcomes were compared between groups via appropriate statistical tests.Results: of 170 patients, 136 underwent edat and 34 erat.Edat showed higher intervention success than erat (99.3% vs 82.4%, p < 0.001), with less guidewire assistance and fewer stent placements (both p < 0.001).Hospital stay was shorter with edat (p = 0.039).The overall cumulative recurrence rates at 1 year were 10% in edat and 24% in erat; in the appendicolith subgroup, the recurrence rates were 5% and 14% in edat and erat, respectively.Findings were consistent in the propensity score-matched (psm) cohort.Two cases of successful intubation with perforation were encountered: one was iatrogenic; the other had an endoscopically identified perforation following fecalith removal (supplementary figure 2e), subjected to negative preoperative ct imaging.Both of them crossed over to appendectomy.Conclusion: edat was demonstrated to be a more effective and feasible approach than erat, with a lower overall cumulative recurrence risk and within the appendicolith subgroup.Consistent results after psm further supported the robustness of these findings.Type of adverse events/number of patients.Perforation (2 patients) there was no allegation of device malfunction identified in the article.This is report 2 of 3.
|
|
This report is being supplemented to provide additional information based on the approved final investigation and correction to the initial report.Corrected field: e1 - department of gastroenterology (b)(6).Updated fields: h6, h11.The device has not been returned to olympus for evaluation.Based on the results of the investigation, the relationship between the device and the adverse event cannot be confirmed.There is no evidence of an olympus device malfunction.Therefore, the root cause cannot be determined.Should additional relevant information become available, a supplemental report will be submitted.Olympus will continue to monitor field performance for this device.
|