Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundRecent evidences suggest that gallbladder drainage is the treatment of choice in elderly or high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis (AC). Despite better outcomes compared to other approaches, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is burdened by high mortality. The aim of the study was to evaluate predictive factors for mortality in high-risk surgical patients who underwent EUS-GBD for AC.MethodsA retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. Electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents were used; all recorded variables were evaluated as potential predictive factors for mortality.ResultsThirty-four patients underwent EUS for suspected AC and 25 (44% male, age 78) were finally included. Technical, clinical success rate and adverse events rate were 92%, 88%, and 16%, respectively. 30-day and 1-year mortality were 12% and 32%. On univariate analysis, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (OR 20.8[4–68.2]), acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 21.4[2.6–52.1]) and clinical success (OR 8.9[1.2–11.6]) were related to 30-day mortality. On multivariate analysis, CCI and AKI were independently related to long-term mortality. Kaplan–Meier curves showed an increased long-term mortality in patients with CCI > 6 (hazard ratio 7.6[1.7–34.6]) and AKI (hazard ratio 11.3[1.4–91.5]).ConclusionsSevere comorbidities and AKI were independent predictive factors confirming of long-term mortality after EUS-GBD. Outcomes of EUS-GBD appear more influenced by patients’ conditions rather than by procedure success.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy and stone extraction is the treatment of choice for choledocholithiasis, reaching a successful clearance of the common bile duct (CBD) in up to 90% of the cases. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has the best diagnostic accuracy for CBD stones, its sensitivity and specificity range being 89–94% and 94–95%, respectively. Traditionally seen as two separate entities, the two worlds of EUS and ERCP have recently come together under the new discipline of bilio-pancreatic endoscopy. Nevertheless, the complexity of both EUS and ERCP led the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy to identify quality in endoscopy as a top priority in its recent EUS and ERCP curriculum recommendations. The clinical benefits of performing EUS and ERCP in the same session are several, such as benefiting from real-time information from EUS, having one single sedation for both the diagnosis and the treatment of biliary stones, reducing the risk of cholangitis/acute pancreatitis while waiting for ERCP after the EUS diagnosis, and ultimately shortening the hospital stay and costs while preserving patients’ outcomes. Potential candidates for the same session approach include patients at high risk for CBD stones, symptomatic individuals with status post-cholecystectomy, pregnant women, and those unfit for surgery. This narrative review discusses the main technical aspects and evidence from the literature about EUS and ERCP in the management of choledocholithiasis.

BackgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) represents the method of choice for removal of large colorectal neoplasms with suspected submucosal invasion. Presence and degree of submucosal fibrosis increases ESD duration and technical complexity, reduces the rate of curative resection and reduces safety profile. The aim of the study was to identify pre-procedural predictive factors of submucosal fibrosis in naïve colorectal neoplasms and to assess the impact of fibrosis on technical and clinical ESD outcomes.MethodsAll consecutive ESD performed between 2014 and 2021 were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. For each patient, pre-procedural, procedural, and post-procedural data were recorded. Logistic regression was used to identify pre-procedural predictive factors for submucosal fibrosis. The study was approved by Institutional Reviewer Board and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04780256).ResultsOne hundred-74 neoplasms (46.6% rectum, 21.8% left colon, 31.6% right colon; size 34.9 ± 17.5 mm) from 169 patients (55.0% male; 69.5 ± 10.4-year-old) were included. 106 (60.9%) neoplasms were granular type laterally spreading tumor (LST-G), 42 (24.1%) non-granular (LST-NG), and 26 (14.9%) sessile; invasive pit pattern was observed in 90 (51.7%) lesions. No fibrosis (F0) mild (F1) and severe (F2) were observed in 62 (35.6%), 92 (52.9%), and 20 (11.5%), respectively. Left colonic localization [OR 3.23 (1.1–9.31)], LST-NG morphology [OR 5.84 (2.03–16.77)] and invasive pit pattern [OR 7.11 (3.11–16.23)] were independently correlated to submucosal fibrosis. Lower curative resection rate (59.8% vs. 93.5%, P < 0.001) was observed in case of fibrosis; the incidence of adverse events was higher in case of severe fibrosis (35.5%) compared to no (3.2%) and mild fibrosis (3.3%; P < 0.001). Procedure time was significantly impacted by presence and degree of fibrosis (P < 0.001).ConclusionsLeft colonic localization, LST-NG morphology, and invasive pit pattern are independent predictors of fibrosis, affecting technical and clinical ESD outcomes. Pre-procedural stratification is pivotal to estimate procedure time, required operator’s experience and advanced dissection techniques.Cecinato P et al. Left colonic localization, non-granular morphology, and pit pattern independently predict submucosal fibrosis of colorectal neoplasms before endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc. 2023.

BackgroundConventional endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), represent the standard of care for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal lesions. In 2012 a novel technique called underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) was described by Binmoeller and colleagues. This substantial variation from the standard procedure was afterwards applied at endoscopic submucosal dissection (U-ESD) and recently proposed also for peroral endoscopic myotomy (U-POEM) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (U-EFTR).MethodsThis paper aims to perform a comprehensive review of the current literature related to supporting the underwater resection techniques with the aim to evaluate their safety and efficacy.ResultsBased on the current literature U-EMR appears to be feasible and safe. Comparison studies showed that U-EMR is associated with higher “en-bloc” and R0 resection rates for colonic lesions, but lower “en-bloc” and R0 resection rates for duodenal non-ampullary lesions, compared to standard EMR. In contrast to U-EMR, little evidence supporting U-ESD are currently available. A single comparison study on gastric lesions showed that U-ESD had shorter procedural times and allowed a similar “en-bloc” resection rates compared to standard ESD. No comparison studies between U-ESD and ESD are available for colonic lesions. Finally, only some anecdotal experiences have been reported for U-POEM or U-EFTR, and the feasibility and effectiveness of these techniques need to be further investigated.ConclusionsFurther prospective studies are necessary to better explore the advantages of underwater techniques compared to the respective standards of care, especially in the setting of U-ESD where consistent data are lacking and where standardization of the technique is needed.

Background For almost 30 years, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) has been the mainstay treatment for large rectal lesions. With the advent of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), flexible endoscopy has aimed at en bloc R0 resection of superficial lesions of the digestive tract. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of ESD and full-thickness rectal wall excision by TEM in the treatment of large nonpedunculated rectal lesions preoperatively assessed as noninvasive. Methods A systematic review of the literature published between 1984 and 2010 was conducted (Registration no. CRD42012001882). Data were integrated with those from the original databases requested from the study authors when needed. Pooled estimates of the proportions of patients with en bloc R0 resection, complications, recurrence, and need for further treatment in the ESD and TEM series were compared using random-effects single-arm meta-analysis. Results This review included 11 ESD and 10 TEM series (2,077 patients). The en bloc resection rate was 87.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 84.3–90.6) for the ESD patients versus 98.7 % (95 % CI 97.4–99.3 %) for the TEM patients ( P  < 0.001). The R0 resection rate was 74.6 % (95 % CI 70.4–78.4 %) for the ESD patients versus 88.5 % (95 % CI 85.9–90.6 %) for the TEM patients ( P  < 0.001). The postoperative complications rate was 8.0 % (95 %, CI 5.4–11.8 %) for the ESD patients versus 8.4 % (95 % CI 5.2–13.4 %) for the TEM patients ( P  = 0.874). The recurrence rate was 2.6 % (95 % CI 1.3–5.2 %) for the ESD patients versus 5.2 % (95 % CI 4.0–6.9 %) for the TEM patients ( P  < 0.001). Nevertheless, the rate for the overall need of further abdominal treatment, defined as any type of surgery performed through an abdominal access, including both complications and pathology indications, was 8.4 % (95 % CI 4.9–13.9 %) for the ESD patients versus 1.8 % (95 % CI 0.8–3.7 %) for the TEM patients ( P  < 0.001). Conclusions The ESD procedure appears to be a safe technique, but TEM achieves a higher R0 resection rate when performed in full-thickness fashion, significantly reducing the need for further abdominal treatment.

Objectives: Most studies assess risk factors for common bile duct (CBD) stones in patients with gallbladder in situ. We aimed to assess risk factors for CBD stones in patients with previous cholecystectomy in a proof-of-concept study. Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients undergoing EUS for suspected symptomatic CBD stones and recorded demographic variables, clinical presentation, liver function tests (LFTs), and transabdominal ultrasound (US) findings. EUS was used as gold standard for CBD stones. Multivariate analysis was used to identify risk factors in the training set; a model was created and tested on the validation set. Results: A total of 211 patients (25.6% male; median age, 66 [49–75] years old) were enrolled; 77.7% presented with abdominal pain, 30.3% with hyperbilirubinemia, 26.5% with pancreatitis, and 61.1% with LFT alterations. Ultrasound showed CBD dilation in 37.4% patients. Overall, 96 (45.5%) patients had CBD stones. According to multivariate analysis, male gender (OR 2.54 [1.26–5.09]; p = 0.009), age > 63 years (OR 3.06 [1.63–5.72]; p < 0.001), LFT alteration (OR 2.62 [1.40–4.91]; p = 0.003), and CBD dilation (OR 2.46 [1.31–4.65]; p = 0.005) were independently related to CBD stones. A model was created based on the number of risk factors on admission; patients with no risk factor had a 9.5% prevalence of CBD stones; those with one risk factor, 26.7%; two risk factors, 53.2%; three risk factors, 66.7%; and four risk factors, 100%. Conclusions: The results of this proof-of-concept study identify male gender, age, LFT alteration, and CBD dilation as risk factors for CBD stones in patients with previous cholecystectomy. An adequate assessment of the pre-test probability will guide patients’ subsequent management.

Objective: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has emerged as a promising alternative for biliary decompression in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO), used either as a first-line approach or after other interventions have failed. This study aimed to evaluate the aggregated efficacy and safety of EUS-GBD in this patient population. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out across PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 9 January 2024, to identify studies reporting outcomes of EUS-GBD in MDBO cases. The primary endpoint assessed was clinical success, while secondary endpoints included technical success and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Pooled outcomes were calculated using a random-effects model and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Seven studies encompassing a total of 193 patients were included in the analysis. The combined clinical success rate for EUS-GBD was 88.1% [95% CI: 78.9–94.9%], while the technical success rate was 99.2% [95% CI: 97.5–100%]. The overall AE rate was 13.7% [95% CI: 9.3–18.8%], with the majority being mild to moderate in severity; no fatal complications were reported. Subgroup analyses indicated that use of smaller lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) (<15 mm) was associated with slightly higher clinical success (93.3% [95% CI: 72.4–99.9%]) compared to larger stents (≥15 mm) (87.1% [95% CI: 78.8–93.5%]), and a marginally lower rate of AEs (12.3% [95% CI: 6.4–19.7%] vs. 15.2% [95% CI: 6.5–26.6%]). Conclusions: EUS-GBD demonstrates excellent technical performance, high clinical efficacy, and a manageable safety profile in patients with MDBO and a patent cystic duct.

Data in favor of EUS-elastography were reported by the same study group, which investigated solid pancreatic lesions ≤15 mm in comparison to the final diagnosis by EUS-guided tissue acquisition and/or surgery. [...]yet importantly, bibliometric analysis of EUS publications is presented. (2023)97:732–40.10.1016/j.gie.2022.12.00436509113 11.RaffJPCookBJafriFNBoxerNMaldonadoJHopkinsU.Successful pancreatic cancer screening among individuals at elevated risk using endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging: a community hospital experience.Pancreas.