BACKGROUND/AIMS: Biliary stone disease is one of the most common conditions leading to hospitalization. In addition to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are required in diagnosing choledocholithiasis. This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of EUS and MRCP against ERCP in diagnosing choledocholithiasis. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted after prospective collection of data involving 62 suspected choledocholithiasis patients who underwent ERCP from June 2013 to August 2014. Patients were divided into two groups. The first group (31 patients) underwent EUS and the second group (31 patients) underwent MRCP. Then, ERCP was performed in both groups. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP were determined by comparing them to ERCP, which is the gold standard. RESULTS: The male to female ratio was 3:2. The mean ages were 47.25 years in the first group and 52.9 years in the second group. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for EUS were 96%, 57%, 87%, 88%, and 80% respectively, and for MRCP were 81%, 40%, 68%, 74%, and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is a better diagnostic tool than MRCP for diagnosing choledocholithiasis.
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde* ; Cholangiopancreatography, Magnetic Resonance* ; Choledocholithiasis* ; Endosonography* ; Female ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Male ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity*

Background/Aims: The clinical practice pattern of polypectomy is not well-investigated in Asian countries. We aimed to survey Asian endoscopists about their preferred polypectomy techniques for given conditions and images of polyps. Methods: A survey was performed using questionnaires composed of two parts: a scenariobased questionnaire using scenarios of polyps, which were adopted from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, and an image-based questionnaire using provided endoscopic images of polyps. Results: A total of 154 endoscopists participated in this survey. The most preferred resection techniques for diminutive (≤5 mm), small (6–9 mm), and benign-looking intermediate (10–19 mm) nonpedunculated polyps were cold forceps polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy, and endoscop-ic mucosal resection (EMR), respectively, in both the scenario- and image-based questionnaires. For benign-looking large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyps, EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) were preferred in the scenario- and image-based surveys, respectively. In case of malignant nonpedunculated polyps, EMR and ESD were preferred for intermediate-sized and large lesions, respectively, according to the scenario-based survey. However, ESD was preferred in both intermediate-sized and large malignant nonpedunculated polyps according to the imagebased survey. Trainee endoscopists, endoscopists working in referral centers, and endoscopistsin the colorectal cancer–prevalent countries were independently associated with preference of cold snare polypectomy for removing small polyps. Conclusions The polypectomy practice patterns of Asian endoscopists vary, and cold snare polypectomy was not the most preferred resection method for polyps <10 mm in size, in contrast to recent guidelines.

Background/Aims: As the number of colonoscopies and polypectomies performed continues to increase in many Asian countries, there is a great demand for surveillance colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to investigate the adherence to postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines among physicians in Asia. Methods: A survey study was performed in seven Asian countries. An email invitation with a link to the survey was sent to participants who were asked to complete the questionnaire consisting of eight clinical scenarios. Results: Of the 137 doctors invited, 123 (89.8%) provided valid responses. Approximately 50% of the participants adhered to the guidelines regardless of the risk of adenoma, except in the case of tubulovillous adenoma ≥10 mm combined with high-grade dysplasia, in which 35% of the participants adhered to the guidelines. The participants were stratified according to the number of colonoscopies performed: ≥20 colonoscopies per month (high volume group) and <20 colo-noscopies per month (low volume group). Higher adherence to the postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines was evident in the high volume group (60%) than in the low volume group (25%). The reasons for nonadherence included concern of missed polyps (59%), the low cost of colonoscopy (26%), concern of incomplete resection (25%), and concern of medical liability (15%). Conclusions A discrepancy between clinical practice and surveillance guidelines among physicians in Asia was found. Physicians in the low volume group frequently did not adhere to the guidelines, suggesting a need for continuing education and appropriate control. Concerns regarding the quality of colonoscopy and complete polypectomy were the main reasons for nonadherence.

Background/Aims: The clinical practice pattern of polypectomy is not well-investigated in Asian countries. We aimed to survey Asian endoscopists about their preferred polypectomy techniques for given conditions and images of polyps. Methods: A survey was performed using questionnaires composed of two parts: a scenariobased questionnaire using scenarios of polyps, which were adopted from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, and an image-based questionnaire using provided endoscopic images of polyps. Results: A total of 154 endoscopists participated in this survey. The most preferred resection techniques for diminutive (≤5 mm), small (6–9 mm), and benign-looking intermediate (10–19 mm) nonpedunculated polyps were cold forceps polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy, and endoscop-ic mucosal resection (EMR), respectively, in both the scenario- and image-based questionnaires. For benign-looking large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyps, EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) were preferred in the scenario- and image-based surveys, respectively. In case of malignant nonpedunculated polyps, EMR and ESD were preferred for intermediate-sized and large lesions, respectively, according to the scenario-based survey. However, ESD was preferred in both intermediate-sized and large malignant nonpedunculated polyps according to the imagebased survey. Trainee endoscopists, endoscopists working in referral centers, and endoscopistsin the colorectal cancer–prevalent countries were independently associated with preference of cold snare polypectomy for removing small polyps. Conclusions The polypectomy practice patterns of Asian endoscopists vary, and cold snare polypectomy was not the most preferred resection method for polyps <10 mm in size, in contrast to recent guidelines.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an essential diagnostic and therapeutic tool. EUS was introduced in 2013 in Indonesia and is considered relatively new. This study aimed to describe the current role of interventional EUS at our hospital as a part of the Indonesian tertiary health center experience. Methods: This retrospective study included all patients who underwent interventional EUS (n=94) at our center between January 2015 and December 2020. Patient characteristics, technical success, clinical success, and adverse events associated with each type of interventional EUS procedure were evaluated. Results: Altogether, 94 interventional EUS procedures were performed at our center between 2015 and 2020 including 75 cases of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), 14 cases of EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage, and five cases of EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. The technical and clinical success rates of EUS-BD were 98.6% and 52%, respectively. The technical success rate was 100% for both EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage and EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. The adverse event rates were 10.6% and 7.1% for EUS-BD and EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage, respectively. Conclusions EUS is an effective and safe tool for the treatment of gastrointestinal and biliary diseases. It has a low rate of adverse events, even in developing countries.

Multiple traumas require a fast and comprehensive treatment to overcome challenges that emerge from the patient’s condition. The right time for trauma team activation is necessary to treat these multiple trauma patients to improve patient outcomes. This integrative review identifies the criteria used to activate the trauma team, the activation process and the outcome of the activation. The search was conducted from January to March 2023 with two databases, namely MEDLINE and PubMed, and grey literature via Google Scholar. The search was limited to articles written in English, with abstracts and available in full text. There was no year limitation. The review found four criteria that were used for trauma team activation: physiological, anatomical, mechanism of injury and others. The process of trauma team activation begins in the pre-hospital setting. Outcomes used to evaluate the impact of trauma team activation included the level of satisfaction of patients and families, the level of complaints, response time, discharge status, and mortality. The findings of this review recommend that the criteria, process, and outcomes of trauma team activation are tailored, based on the needs and available resources of the institutions. Moreover, standardized trauma team activation may be necessary for future development.