Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is widely utilized as a diagnostic modality for intra-abdominal masses, but there remains debate regarding which suction technique, slow pull (SP) or conventional suction (CS), is better. A meta-analysis of reported studies was conducted to compare the diagnostic yields of SP and CS during EUS-guided tissue acquisition. Methods: We conducted a systematic electronic search using MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical studies comparing SP and CS. We meta-analyzed accuracy, sensitivity, blood contamination and cellularity using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 17 studies (seven randomized controlled trials, four prospective studies, and six retrospective studies) with 1,616 cases were included in the analysis. Compared to CS, there was a trend toward better accuracy (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 2.27; p=0.07) and sensitivity (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.93; p=0.08) with SP and a significantly lower rate of blood contamination (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; p<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in cellularity between SP and CS, with an OR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.40; p=0.45). When the use of a 25-gauge needle was analyzed, the accuracy and sensitivity of SP were significantly better than those of CS, with ORs of 4.81 (95% CI, 1.99 to 11.62; p<0.01) and 4.69 (95% CI, 1.93 to 11.40; p<0.01), respectively. Conclusions Compared to CS, SP appears to provide better accuracy and sensitivity in EUSguided tissue acquisition, especially when a 25-gauge needle is used.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is widely utilized as a diagnostic modality for intra-abdominal masses, but there remains debate regarding which suction technique, slow pull (SP) or conventional suction (CS), is better. A meta-analysis of reported studies was conducted to compare the diagnostic yields of SP and CS during EUS-guided tissue acquisition. Methods: We conducted a systematic electronic search using MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical studies comparing SP and CS. We meta-analyzed accuracy, sensitivity, blood contamination and cellularity using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 17 studies (seven randomized controlled trials, four prospective studies, and six retrospective studies) with 1,616 cases were included in the analysis. Compared to CS, there was a trend toward better accuracy (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 2.27; p=0.07) and sensitivity (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.93; p=0.08) with SP and a significantly lower rate of blood contamination (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; p<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in cellularity between SP and CS, with an OR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.40; p=0.45). When the use of a 25-gauge needle was analyzed, the accuracy and sensitivity of SP were significantly better than those of CS, with ORs of 4.81 (95% CI, 1.99 to 11.62; p<0.01) and 4.69 (95% CI, 1.93 to 11.40; p<0.01), respectively. Conclusions Compared to CS, SP appears to provide better accuracy and sensitivity in EUSguided tissue acquisition, especially when a 25-gauge needle is used.

Endoscopic management of bile duct stones is now the standard of care, but challenges remain with difficult bile duct stones. There are some known factors associated with technically difficult bile duct stones, such as large size and surgically altered anatomy. Endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy is now the standard technique used to remove large bile duct stones, but the efficacy of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) and cholangioscopy with intraductal lithotripsy has been increasingly reported. In patients with surgically altered anatomy, biliary access before stone removal can be technically difficult. Endotherapy using two new endoscopes is now utilized in clinical practice: enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade treatment. These new approaches can be combined with EPLBD and/or cholangioscopy to remove large bile duct stones from patients with surgically altered anatomy. Since various endoscopic procedures are now available, endoscopists should learn the indications, advantages and disadvantages of each technique for better management of bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) has emerged as a palliative treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Although covered SEMSs can prevent tumor ingrowth, frequent migration of covered SEMSs may offset their advantages in preventing tumor ingrowth. METHODS: We conducted this multicenter, single-arm, retrospective study at six tertiary referral centers to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a partially covered SEMS with an uncovered large-bore flare at the proximal end as an antimigration system in 41 patients with symptomatic malignant GOO. The primary outcome was clinical success, and the secondary outcomes were technical success, stent dysfunction, adverse events, and survival after stent placement. RESULTS: The technical and clinical success rates were 100% and 95%, respectively. Stent dysfunctions occurred in 17 patients (41%), including stent migration in nine (23%), tumor ingrowth in one (2%), and tumor overgrowth in four (10%). Two patients (5%) developed adverse events: one pancreatitis and one perforation. No procedure-related death was observed. CONCLUSIONS: A novel partially covered SEMS with a large-bore flare proximal end was safe and effective for malignant GOO but failed to prevent stent migration. Further research is warranted to develop a covered SEMS with an optimal antimigration system.
Gastric Outlet Obstruction* ; Humans ; Palliative Care ; Pancreatitis ; Retrospective Studies ; Self Expandable Metallic Stents ; Stents* ; Tertiary Care Centers

Background/Aims: Mechanical properties (MPs) and axial and radial force (AF and RF) may influence the efficacy and complications of self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement. We measured the MPs of various SEMSs and examined their influence on the SEMS clinical ability. Methods: We evaluated the MPs of 29 types of 10-mm SEMSs. RF was measured using a conventional measurement device. AF was measured using the conventional and new methods, and the correlation between the methods was evaluated. Results: A high correlation in AFs was observed, as measured by the new and conventional manual methods. AF and RF scatterplots divided the SEMSs into three subgroups according to structure: hook-and-cross-type (low AF and RF), cross-type (high AF and low RF), and laser-cut-type (intermediate AF and high RF). The hook-and-cross-type had the largest axial force zero border (>20°), followed by the laser-cut and cross types. Conclusions MPs were related to stent structure. Hook-and-cross-type SEMSs had a low AF and high axial force zero border and were considered safest because they caused minimal stress on the biliary wall. However, the increase in RF must be overcome.

Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) are common adverse events that occur after pancreatic surgery. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage (EUS-D) is a first-line treatment, similar to that for pancreatic fluid collection (PFCs) after acute pancreatitis. However, some POPFs do not develop fluid collections depending on the presence or location of the surgical drain, whereas others develop fluid collections, such as postoperative fluid collections (POPFCs). Although POPFCs are similar to PFCs, the strategy and modality for POPF management need to be modified according to the presence of fluid collections, surgical drains, and surgical type. As discussed for PFCs, the indications, timing, and selection of interventions or stents for EUS-D have not been fully elucidated for POPFs. In this review, we discuss the management of POPFs and POPFCs in comparison with PFCs due to acute pancreatitis and summarize the topics that should be addressed in future studies.

Background/Aims: Duodenal invasion (DI) is a risk factor for early recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage (ERCP-BD). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) may reduce early RBO in cases of asymptomatic DI, even when ERCP is possible. Methods: We enrolled 56 patients with pancreatic cancer and asymptomatic DI who underwent EUS-HGS (n=25) or ERCP-BD (n=31). Technical and clinical success, early (<3 months) and overall RBO rates, time to RBO (TRBO), and adverse events were compared between the EUS-HGS and ERCP-BD groups. Risk factors for early RBO were also evaluated. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Both procedures demonstrated 100% technical and clinical success rates, with a similar incidence of adverse events (48% vs. 39%, p=0.59). While the median TRBO was comparable (5.7 vs. 8.8 months, p=0.60), EUS-HGS was associated with a lower incidence of early RBO compared to ERCP-BD (8% vs. 29%, p=0.09). The major causes of early RBO in ERCP-BD were sludge and food impaction, rarely occurring in EUS-HGS. EUS-HGS was potentially reduced early RBO (odds ratio, 0.32; p=0.07). Conclusions EUS-HGS can be a viable option for treating pancreatic cancer with asymptomatic DI.

Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) are common adverse events that occur after pancreatic surgery. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage (EUS-D) is a first-line treatment, similar to that for pancreatic fluid collection (PFCs) after acute pancreatitis. However, some POPFs do not develop fluid collections depending on the presence or location of the surgical drain, whereas others develop fluid collections, such as postoperative fluid collections (POPFCs). Although POPFCs are similar to PFCs, the strategy and modality for POPF management need to be modified according to the presence of fluid collections, surgical drains, and surgical type. As discussed for PFCs, the indications, timing, and selection of interventions or stents for EUS-D have not been fully elucidated for POPFs. In this review, we discuss the management of POPFs and POPFCs in comparison with PFCs due to acute pancreatitis and summarize the topics that should be addressed in future studies.

Background/Aims: Duodenal invasion (DI) is a risk factor for early recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage (ERCP-BD). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) may reduce early RBO in cases of asymptomatic DI, even when ERCP is possible. Methods: We enrolled 56 patients with pancreatic cancer and asymptomatic DI who underwent EUS-HGS (n=25) or ERCP-BD (n=31). Technical and clinical success, early (<3 months) and overall RBO rates, time to RBO (TRBO), and adverse events were compared between the EUS-HGS and ERCP-BD groups. Risk factors for early RBO were also evaluated. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Both procedures demonstrated 100% technical and clinical success rates, with a similar incidence of adverse events (48% vs. 39%, p=0.59). While the median TRBO was comparable (5.7 vs. 8.8 months, p=0.60), EUS-HGS was associated with a lower incidence of early RBO compared to ERCP-BD (8% vs. 29%, p=0.09). The major causes of early RBO in ERCP-BD were sludge and food impaction, rarely occurring in EUS-HGS. EUS-HGS was potentially reduced early RBO (odds ratio, 0.32; p=0.07). Conclusions EUS-HGS can be a viable option for treating pancreatic cancer with asymptomatic DI.

Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) are common adverse events that occur after pancreatic surgery. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage (EUS-D) is a first-line treatment, similar to that for pancreatic fluid collection (PFCs) after acute pancreatitis. However, some POPFs do not develop fluid collections depending on the presence or location of the surgical drain, whereas others develop fluid collections, such as postoperative fluid collections (POPFCs). Although POPFCs are similar to PFCs, the strategy and modality for POPF management need to be modified according to the presence of fluid collections, surgical drains, and surgical type. As discussed for PFCs, the indications, timing, and selection of interventions or stents for EUS-D have not been fully elucidated for POPFs. In this review, we discuss the management of POPFs and POPFCs in comparison with PFCs due to acute pancreatitis and summarize the topics that should be addressed in future studies.