Mayenaaz Sidhu
Westmead Hospital
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Mayenaaz Sidhu.
Endoscopy | 2017
David J. Tate; Farzan F. Bahin; Lobke Desomer; Mayenaaz Sidhu; Vikas Gupta; Michael J. Bourke
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Non-lifting large laterally spreading colorectal lesions (LSLs) are challenging to resect endoscopically and often necessitate surgery. A safe, simple technique to treat non-lifting LSLs endoscopically with robust long-term outcomes has not been described. METHODS In this single-center prospective observational study of consecutive patients referred for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of LSLs ≥ 20 mm, LSLs not completely resectable by snare because of non-lifting underwent standardized completion of resection with cold-forceps avulsion and adjuvant snare-tip soft coagulation (CAST). Scheduled surveillance colonoscopies were performed at 4 - 6 months (SC1) and 18 months (SC2). Primary outcomes were endoscopic evidence of adenoma clearance and avoidance of surgery. The secondary outcome was safety. RESULTS From January 2012 to October 2016, 540 lifting LSLs (82.2 %) underwent complete snare excision at EMR. CAST was required for complete removal in 101 non-lifting LSLs (17.8 %): 63 naïve non-lifting lesions (NNLs; 62.7 %) and 38 previously attempted non-lifting lesions (PANLs; 37.3 %). PANLs were smaller (P < 0.001) and more likely to be non-granular (P = 0.001) than the lifting LSLs. NNLs were of similar size (P = 0.77) and morphology (P = 0.10) to the lifting LSLs. CAST was successful in all cases and adverse events were comparable to lifting LSLs resected by complete snare excision. Recurrence at SC1 was comparable for PANLs (15.2 %) and lifting LSLs (15.3 %; P = 0.99), whereas NNLs recurred more frequently (27.5 %; P = 0.049); however, surgery was no more common for either type of non-lifting LSL than for lifting LSLs. CONCLUSION CAST is a safe, effective, and surgery-sparing therapy for the majority of non-lifting LSLs. It is easy to use, inexpensive, and does not require additional equipment.
Endoscopy | 2018
Mayenaaz Sidhu; David J. Tate; Lobke Desomer; Gregor J. Brown; Luke F. Hourigan; Eric Y. Lee; Alan Moss; Spiro C. Raftopoulos; Rajvinder Singh; Stephen J. Williams; Simon A. Zanati; Nicholas G. Burgess; Michael J. Bourke
BACKGROUND The SMSA (size, morphology, site, access) polyp scoring system is a method of stratifying the difficulty of polypectomy through assessment of four domains. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of SMSA to predict critical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). METHODS We retrospectively applied SMSA to a prospectively collected multicenter database of large colonic laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) ≥ 20 mm referred for EMR. Standard inject-and-resect EMR procedures were performed. The primary end points were correlation of SMSA level with technical success, adverse events, and endoscopic recurrence. RESULTS 2675 lesions in 2675 patients (52.6 % male) underwent EMR. Failed single-session EMR occurred in 124 LSLs (4.6 %) and was predicted by the SMSA score (P < 0.001). Intraprocedural and clinically significant postendoscopic bleeding was significantly less common for SMSA 2 LSLs (odds ratio [OR] 0.36, P < 0.001 and OR 0.23, P < 0.01) and SMSA 3 LSLs (OR 0.41, P < 0.001 and OR 0.60, P = 0.05) compared with SMSA 4 lesions. Similarly, endoscopic recurrence at first surveillance was less likely among SMSA 2 (OR 0.19, P < 0.001) and SMSA 3 (OR 0.33, P < 0.001) lesions compared with SMSA 4 lesions. This also extended to second surveillance among SMSA 4 LSLs. CONCLUSION SMSA is a simple, readily applicable, clinical score that identifies a subgroup of patients who are at increased risk of failed EMR, adverse events, and adenoma recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy. This information may be useful for improving informed consent, planning endoscopy lists, and developing quality control measures for practitioners of EMR, with potential implications for EMR benchmarking and training.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
David J. Tate; Mahesh Jayanna; Halim Awadie; Lobke Desomer; Ralph Lee; Steven J. Heitman; Mayenaaz Sidhu; Kathleen Goodrick; Nicholas G. Burgess; Hema Mahajan; Duncan McLeod; Michael J. Bourke
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
Mayenaaz Sidhu; David J. Tate; Lobke Desomer; Halim Awadie; Gregor J. Brown; Luke F. Hourigan; Rajvinder Singh; Simon A. Zanati; Alan C. Moss; Spiro C. Raftopoulos; Eric Y. Lee; Nicholas G. Burgess; John Anderson; Michael J. Bourke
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
David J. Tate; Halim Awadie; Lobke Desomer; Mayenaaz Sidhu; Nicholas G. Burgess; Luke F. Hourigan; Alan C. Moss; Spiro C. Raftopoulos; Rajvinder Singh; Gregor J. Brown; Michael J. Bourke
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
Mayenaaz Sidhu; David J. Tate; Michael J. Bourke
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
David J. Tate; Lobke Desomer; Halim Awadie; Kathleen Goodrick; Mayenaaz Sidhu; Nicholas G. Burgess; Michael J. Bourke
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2017
David J. Tate; Mayenaaz Sidhu; Gregor J. Brown; Simon A. Zanati; Alan C. Moss; Rajvinder Singh; Spiro C. Raftopoulos; Luke F. Hourigan; Eric Y. Lee; Stephen J. Williams; Nicholas G. Burgess; Lobke Desomer; Donald Ormonde; Michael J. Bourke
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2017
Mayenaaz Sidhu; David J. Tate; Michael J. Bourke
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2017
David J. Tate; Farzan F. Bahin; Lobke Desomer; Mayenaaz Sidhu; Vikas Gupta; Michael J. Bourke