Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Background: Insulin-treated patients with long duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at increased risk of ketoacidosis related to sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i). The extent of circulating ketone elevation in these patients remains unknown. We conducted this study to compare the serum ketone response between dapagliflozin, an SGLT2i, and sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, among insulin-treated T2DM patients. Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, active comparator-controlled study involving 60 insulin-treated T2DM patients. Participants were randomized 1:1 for 24-week of dapagliflozin 10 mg daily or sitagliptin 100 mg daily. Serum β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) levels were measured at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks after intervention. Comprehensive cardiometabolic assessments were performed with measurements of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC), vibration-controlled transient elastography and echocardiography. Results: Among these 60 insulin-treated participants (mean age 58.8 years, diabetes duration 18.2 years, glycosylated hemoglobin 8.87%), as compared with sitagliptin, serum BHB levels increased significantly after 24 weeks of dapagliflozin (P=0.045), with a median of 27% increase from baseline. Change in serum BHB levels correlated significantly with change in free fatty acid levels. Despite similar glucose lowering, dapagliflozin led to significant improvements in body weight (P=0.006), waist circumference (P=0.028), HDL-C (P=0.041), CEC (P=0.045), controlled attenuation parameter (P=0.007), and liver stiffness (P=0.022). Average E/e’, an echocardiographic index of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, was also significantly lower at 24 weeks in participants treated with dapagliflozin (P=0.037). Conclusion Among insulin-treated T2DM patients with long diabetes duration, compared to sitagliptin, dapagliflozin modestly increased ketone levels and was associated with cardiometabolic benefits.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the “proven GERD” with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis.Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the “proven GERD” with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis.Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

Esophageal achalasia is a primary motility disorder characterized by insufficient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation and loss of esophageal peristalsis. Achalasia is a chronic disease that causes progressive irreversible loss of esophageal motor function. The recent development of high-resolution manometry has facilitated the diagnosis of achalasia, and determining the achalasia subtypes based on high-resolution manometry can be important when deciding on treatment methods. Peroral endoscopic myotomy is less invasive than surgery with comparable efficacy. The present guidelines (the “2019 Seoul Consensus on Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines”) were developed based on evidence-based medicine; the Asian Neurogastroenterology and Motility Association and Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility served as the operating and development committees, respectively. The development of the guidelines began in June 2018, and a draft consensus based on the Delphi process was achieved in April 2019. The guidelines consist of 18 recommendations: 2 pertaining to the definition and epidemiology of achalasia, 6 pertaining to diagnoses, and 10 pertaining to treatments. The endoscopic treatment section is based on the latest evidence from meta-analyses. Clinicians (including gastroenterologists, upper gastrointestinal tract surgeons, general physicians, nurses, and other hospital workers) and patients could use these guidelines to make an informed decision on the management of achalasia.

During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, practices of gastrointestinal procedures within the digestive tract require special precautions due to the risk of contraction of severe acute respiratoy syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Many procedures in the gastrointestinal motility laboratory may be considered moderate to high-risk for viral transmission. Healthcare staff working in gastrointestinal motility laboratories are frequently exposed to splashes, air droplets, mucus, or saliva during the procedures. Moreover, some are aerosol-generating and thus have a high risk of viral transmission. There are multiple guidelines on the practices of gastrointestinal endoscopy during this pandemic. However, such guidelines are still lacking and urgently needed for the practice of gastrointestinal motility laboratories. Hence, the Asian Neurogastroenterology and Motility Association had organized a group of gastrointestinal motility experts and infectious disease specialists to produce a position statement paper based-on current available evidence and consensus opinion with aims to provide a clear guidance on the practices of gastrointestinal motility laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic. This guideline covers a wide range of topics on gastrointestinal motility activities from scheduling a motility test, the precautions at different steps of the procedure to disinfection for the safety and well-being of the patients and the healthcare workers. These practices may vary in different countries depending on the stages of the pandemic, local or institutional policy, and the availability of healthcare resources. This guideline is useful when the transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2 is high. It may change rapidly depending on the situation of the epidemic and when new evidence becomes available.