Diameter of surgical versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy: that much wider after all is said and done?

n/

Precision Endoscopy in Peroral Myotomies for Motility Disorders of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract: Current Insights and Prospective Avenues—A Comprehensive Review

Our review delves into the realm of peroral endoscopic myotomies (POEMs) in the upper gastrointestinal tract (UGT). In recent years, POEMs have brought about a revolution in the treatment of UGT motility disorders. Esophageal POEM, the first to be introduced, has now been validated as the primary treatment for achalasia. Subsequently developed, G-POEM displays promising results in addressing refractory gastroparesis. Over time, multiple endoscopic myotomy techniques have emerged for the treatment of Zenker’s diverticulum, including Z-POEM, POES, and hybrid approaches. Despite the well-established efficacy outcomes, new challenges arise in the realm of POEMs in the UGT. For esophageal POEM, the future scenario lies in customizing the myotomy extent to the minimum necessary, while for G-POEM, it involves identifying patients who can optimally benefit from the treatment. For ZD, it is crucial to validate an algorithm that considers various myotomy options according to the diverticulum’s size and in relation to individual patients. These challenges align with the concept of precision endoscopy, personalizing the technique for each subject. Within our text, we comprehensively examine each myotomy technique, analyzing indications, outcomes, and adverse events. Additionally, we explore the emerging challenges posed by myotomies within the context of the evolving field of precision endoscopy

Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT) versus Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) for Anastomotic Leaks after Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Endoscopic treatment of post-esophagectomy/gastrectomy anastomotic dehiscence includes Self-Expandable Metal Stents (SEMS), which have represented the “gold standard” for many years, and Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT), which was recently introduced, showing promising results. The aim of the study was to compare outcomes of SEMS and EVT in the treatment of post-esophagectomy/gastrectomy anastomotic leaks, focusing on oncologic surgery. Methods: A systematic search was performed on Pubmed and Embase, identifying studies comparing EVT versus SEMS for the treatment of leaks after upper gastro-intestinal surgery for malignant or benign pathologies. The primary outcome was the rate of successful leak closure. A meta-analysis was conducted, performing an a priori-defined subgroup analysis for the oncologic surgery group. Results: Eight retrospective studies with 357 patients were eligible. Overall, the EVT group showed a higher success rate (odd ratio [OR] 2.58, 95% CI 1.43–4.66), a lower number of devices (pooled mean difference [pmd] 4.90, 95% CI 3.08–6.71), shorter treatment duration (pmd −9.18, 95% CI −17.05–−1.32), lower short-term complication (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18–0.71) and mortality rates (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24–0.92) compared to stenting. In the oncologic surgery subgroup analysis, no differences in the success rate were found (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.74–3.40, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Overall, EVT has been revealed to be more effective and less burdened by complications compared to stenting. In the oncologic surgery subgroup analysis, efficacy rates were similar between the two groups. Further prospective data need to define a unique management algorithm for anastomotic leaks

The Dual Lens of Endoscopy and Histology in the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders—A Comprehensive Review

Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders (EGIDs) are a group of conditions characterized by abnormal eosinophil accumulation in the gastrointestinal tract. Among these EGIDs, Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) is the most well documented, while less is known about Eosinophilic Gastritis (EoG), Eosinophilic Enteritis (EoN), and Eosinophilic Colitis (EoC). The role of endoscopy in EGIDs is pivotal, with applications in diagnosis, disease monitoring, and therapeutic intervention. In EoE, the endoscopic reference score (EREFS) has been shown to be accurate in raising diagnostic suspicion and effective in monitoring therapeutic responses. Additionally, endoscopic dilation is the first-line treatment for esophageal strictures. For EoG and EoN, while the literature is more limited, common endoscopic findings include erythema, nodules, and ulcerations. Histology remains the gold standard for diagnosing EGIDs, as it quantifies eosinophilic infiltration. In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the histological understanding of EoE, leading to the development of diagnostic scores and the identification of specific microscopic features associated with the disease. However, for EoG, EoN, and EoC, precise eosinophil count thresholds for diagnosis have not yet been established. This review aims to elucidate the role of endoscopy and histology in the diagnosis and management of the three main EGIDs and to analyze their strengths and limitations, their interconnection, and future research directions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: An international, multicenter, propensity score-matched comparison

Background  Endoscopic duodenal stenting is the current standard treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients with limited life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting is prone to stent dysfunction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel technique with potentially superior stent patency. We compared clinical success, safety, and stent dysfunction of EUS-GE and duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO using propensity score matching. Methods  This international, multicenter, retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GE or duodenal stenting for GOO between 2015 and 2021 in three European centers. Primary outcomes were clinical success (GOO scoring system [GOOSS] ≥ 2) and stent dysfunction (GOOSS ≤ 1 after initial clinical success). A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, sex, underlying disease, disease stage, ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis as variables. Results  214 patients underwent EUS-GE (n = 107) or duodenal stenting (n = 107). After propensity score matching, 176 patients were matched and compared. Technical success rates for EUS-GE and duodenal stenting were 94 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %) vs. 98 % (95 %CI 95 %-100 %), respectively (P  = 0.44). Clinical success rates were 91 % (95 %CI 85 %-97 %) vs. 75 % (95 %CI 66 %-84 %; P  = 0.008). Stent dysfunction occurred in 1 % (95 %CI 0-4 %) vs. 26 % (95 %CI 15 %-37 %) of patients (P  < 0.001). Adverse event rate was 10 % (95 %CI 4 %-17 %) vs. 21 % (95 %CI 12 %-29 %; P  = 0.09). Conclusion  EUS-GE had higher clinical success and lower stent dysfunction, with similar safety, compared with duodenal stenting, suggesting that EUS-GE may be preferred over duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: An international, multicenter, propensity score-matched comparison

Background  Endoscopic duodenal stenting is the current standard treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients with limited life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting is prone to stent dysfunction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel technique with potentially superior stent patency. We compared clinical success, safety, and stent dysfunction of EUS-GE and duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO using propensity score matching. Methods  This international, multicenter, retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GE or duodenal stenting for GOO between 2015 and 2021 in three European centers. Primary outcomes were clinical success (GOO scoring system [GOOSS] ≥ 2) and stent dysfunction (GOOSS ≤ 1 after initial clinical success). A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, sex, underlying disease, disease stage, ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis as variables. Results  214 patients underwent EUS-GE (n = 107) or duodenal stenting (n = 107). After propensity score matching, 176 patients were matched and compared. Technical success rates for EUS-GE and duodenal stenting were 94 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %) vs. 98 % (95 %CI 95 %-100 %), respectively (P  = 0.44). Clinical success rates were 91 % (95 %CI 85 %-97 %) vs. 75 % (95 %CI 66 %-84 %; P  = 0.008). Stent dysfunction occurred in 1 % (95 %CI 0-4 %) vs. 26 % (95 %CI 15 %-37 %) of patients (P  < 0.001). Adverse event rate was 10 % (95 %CI 4 %-17 %) vs. 21 % (95 %CI 12 %-29 %; P  = 0.09). Conclusion  EUS-GE had higher clinical success and lower stent dysfunction, with similar safety, compared with duodenal stenting, suggesting that EUS-GE may be preferred over duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO