Superior mesenteric artery syndrome (SMAS) causes compression and partial or complete obstruction of the duodenum, resulting in abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and weight loss. If conservative therapy fails, the patient is typically referred for enteral feeding or laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy.
The last few years have seen increasing use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GJ) for gastric obstruction indications. EUS-GJ involves the creation of a gastric bypass via an echoendoscope in cases in which the small intestine can be punctured under ultrasonographic visualization, resulting in an incision-free, efficient, and safe procedure.
In this case report, we present the first case of SMAS treated using a reverse EUS-GJ, and describe the steps and advantages of the procedure in this particular case.

The diagnosis and management of pancreatic strictures, whether malignant or benign, remain challenging. The last 2 decades have seen dramatic progress in terms of both advanced imaging and endoscopic therapy. While plastic stents remain the cornerstone of the treatment of benign strictures, the advent of fully covered metal stents has initiated a new wave of interest in calibrating the pancreatic duct with fewer sessions. In malignant disease, palliation remains the priority and further data are necessary before offering systematic pancreatic stenting.
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Constriction, Pathologic* ; Diagnosis ; Endosonography ; Pancreas ; Pancreatic Ducts* ; Plastics ; Stents

Background/Aims:  Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage is the preferred approach for infected or symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). Here, we developed an algorithm for the management of pancreatitis complicated by PFCs and report on its effcacy and safety. Methods: Between September 2011 and October 2017, patients were prospectively managed according to the algorithm. PFCs were classified as poorly organized fluid collections (POFCs), pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs), or walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). Clinical success was defined as a decrease in PFC size by ≥50% of the maximal diameter or to ≤2 cm. Results:  A total of 108 patients (62% male; mean age, 53 years) were included: 13 had POFCs, 43 had PPs, and 52 had WOPN. Seventytwo patients (66%) required a pancreatic duct (PD) stent, whereas 65 (60%) received enteral feeding. A total of 103 (95%) patients achieved clinical success. Eight patients experienced complications including bleeding (n=6) and surgical intervention (n=2). Patients with enteral feeding were 3.4 times more likely to achieve resolution within 60 days (p=0.0421), whereas those with PD stenting was five times more likely to achieve resolution within 90 days (p=0.0069). Conclusions  A high PFC resolution rate can be achieved when a dedicated algorithm encompassing EUS-guided drainage, PD stenting, and early enteral feeding is adopted.

Background/Aims: The real-world efficacy of computer-aided detection (CADe) systems, such as GI Genius (Medtronic), is unclear. We examined the colonoscopy metrics using CADe alone and with a mucosal exposure device (EndoCuff; Olympus) in a real-world setting. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed screening and surveillance colonoscopies before, during, and after CADe use in a large tertiary care center. Outcomes included the adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), sessile serrated lesions per colonoscopy, adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR), advanced ADR, total polyp detection rate, and true histology rate. The ADR and SSLDR were further examined according to size, colon location, and EndoCuff use. Results: A total of 798 colonoscopies were performed, including 386 pre-CADe, 178 CADe, and 234 post-CADe. In cases where CADe was used with the EndoCuff, the 1 to 5 mm ADR increased from 36.3% (pre-CADe) to 52.1% (CADe) (p=0.01). The 1 to 5 mm SSLDR increased from 9.6% (pre-CADe) to 17.1% (CADe) (p=0.02). The right-sided ADR increased from 30.8% (pre-CADe) to 42.7% (CADe) (p=0.03). The right-sided SSLDR increased from 12.3% (pre-CADe) to 24.8% (CADe) (p<0.001). No significant changes were observed when only CADe was used. No differences were found in other outcome measures. Post-CADe metrics returned to pre-CADe levels. Conclusions GI Genius is useful for identifying small and right-sided polyps only when used with the EndoCuff.

Background/Aims: The real-world efficacy of computer-aided detection (CADe) systems, such as GI Genius (Medtronic), is unclear. We examined the colonoscopy metrics using CADe alone and with a mucosal exposure device (EndoCuff; Olympus) in a real-world setting. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed screening and surveillance colonoscopies before, during, and after CADe use in a large tertiary care center. Outcomes included the adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), sessile serrated lesions per colonoscopy, adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR), advanced ADR, total polyp detection rate, and true histology rate. The ADR and SSLDR were further examined according to size, colon location, and EndoCuff use. Results: A total of 798 colonoscopies were performed, including 386 pre-CADe, 178 CADe, and 234 post-CADe. In cases where CADe was used with the EndoCuff, the 1 to 5 mm ADR increased from 36.3% (pre-CADe) to 52.1% (CADe) (p=0.01). The 1 to 5 mm SSLDR increased from 9.6% (pre-CADe) to 17.1% (CADe) (p=0.02). The right-sided ADR increased from 30.8% (pre-CADe) to 42.7% (CADe) (p=0.03). The right-sided SSLDR increased from 12.3% (pre-CADe) to 24.8% (CADe) (p<0.001). No significant changes were observed when only CADe was used. No differences were found in other outcome measures. Post-CADe metrics returned to pre-CADe levels. Conclusions GI Genius is useful for identifying small and right-sided polyps only when used with the EndoCuff.

Background/Aims: The real-world efficacy of computer-aided detection (CADe) systems, such as GI Genius (Medtronic), is unclear. We examined the colonoscopy metrics using CADe alone and with a mucosal exposure device (EndoCuff; Olympus) in a real-world setting. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed screening and surveillance colonoscopies before, during, and after CADe use in a large tertiary care center. Outcomes included the adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), sessile serrated lesions per colonoscopy, adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR), advanced ADR, total polyp detection rate, and true histology rate. The ADR and SSLDR were further examined according to size, colon location, and EndoCuff use. Results: A total of 798 colonoscopies were performed, including 386 pre-CADe, 178 CADe, and 234 post-CADe. In cases where CADe was used with the EndoCuff, the 1 to 5 mm ADR increased from 36.3% (pre-CADe) to 52.1% (CADe) (p=0.01). The 1 to 5 mm SSLDR increased from 9.6% (pre-CADe) to 17.1% (CADe) (p=0.02). The right-sided ADR increased from 30.8% (pre-CADe) to 42.7% (CADe) (p=0.03). The right-sided SSLDR increased from 12.3% (pre-CADe) to 24.8% (CADe) (p<0.001). No significant changes were observed when only CADe was used. No differences were found in other outcome measures. Post-CADe metrics returned to pre-CADe levels. Conclusions GI Genius is useful for identifying small and right-sided polyps only when used with the EndoCuff.