Background/Aims: Multiple outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms have been reported worldwide due to contaminated duodenoscopes. In 2015, the United States Food and Drug Administration recommended the following supplemental enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (ESRT) to improve duodenoscope disinfection: 1. microbiological culture, 2. ethylene oxide sterilization, 3. liquid chemical sterilant processing system, and 4. double high-level disinfection. A systematic review and metaanalysis was performed to assess the impact of ESRT on the contamination rates. Methods: A thorough and systematic search was performed across several databases and conference proceedings from inception until January 2021, and all studies reporting the effectiveness of various ESRTs were identified. The pooled contamination rates of post-ESRT duodenoscopes were estimated using the random effects model. Results: A total of seven studies using various ESRTs were incorporated in the analysis, which included a total of 9,084 post-ESRT duodenoscope cultures. The pooled contamination rate of the post-ESRT duodenoscope was 5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3%–10.8%, inconsistency index [I2]=97.97%). Pooled contamination rates for high-risk organisms were 0.8% (95% CI: 0.2%–2.7%, I2=94.96). Conclusions While ESRT may improve the disinfection process, a post-ESRT contamination rate of 5% is not negligible. Ongoing efforts to mitigate the rate of contamination by improving disinfection techniques and innovations in duodenoscope design to improve safety are warranted.

Background/Aims: Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) is an accepted anatomic treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease in selected patients. In this report, we analyze our institution’s programmatic allocation of resources during the safe implementation of TIF as a new procedure. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent TIF from January 2020 to February 2021 at our institution was performed. The process of initially allocating the operating room (OR) with overnight admission and postoperative esophagram for added safety, and subsequently transitioning TIF to the endoscopy suite (ES) as an outpatient procedure was described. Patient safety and outcomes were evaluated during transition. Results: Thirty patients who underwent TIF were identified. The mean age was 51.2±16.0 years. TIF was performed in an OR in nine patients (30%) and 21 (70%) in the ES. All the OR patients were admitted overnight and had routine EG. In contrast, four (19%) from the ES group required clinically-indicated admission and three (14.2%) required esophagram. The mean procedure duration was significantly lower in the ES group (65.7 min vs. 84 min, p=0.02). Conclusions A stepwise, resource-efficient process was described that allowed safe initiation of TIF as a new technique and its effective transition to a fully outpatient procedure.

Background/Aims: Colonoscopy for screening is associated with unpleasant experiences for patients, and abdominal compression devices have been developed to minimize these problems. However, there is a paucity of data supporting the therapeutic benefits of this strategy. This study examined the effects of using an abdominal compression device during colonoscopy on the cecal intubation time (CIT), abdominal compression, patient comfort, and postural changes. Methods: We searched PubMed and Scopus (from inception to November 2021) for randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of an abdominal compression device during colonoscopy on CIT, abdominal compression, patient comfort, and postural change. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. Results: Our pooled analysis of seven randomized controlled trials revealed that abdominal compression devices significantly reduced CIT (WMD, –0.76 [–1.49 to –0.03] minutes; p=0.04), abdominal compression (OR, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.94; p=0.03), and postural changes (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27–0.78; p=0.004) during colonoscopy. However, our results did not show a significant change in patient comfort (WMD, –0.48; 95% CI, –1.05 to 0.08; p=0.09) when using an abdominal compression device. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that employing an abdominal compression device may reduce CIT, abdominal compression, and postural change but have no impact on patient comfort.