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.

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.

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.

Objective: Hospitals throughout Japan are being integrated and reorganized under the government's regional medical care plan. However, the effects on cardiovascular surgery practice remain unknown. In the year 2016, our institution employed hospital integration; we report its effects on patients with type A acute aortic dissection who underwent emergency surgery. Methods: This study included 89 patients who underwent emergency surgery for type A acute aortic dissection from May 2012 to December 2020. Evaluation items included preoperative patient factors, number of surgeries, surgical mortality, referral rate, patient transport time, transport distance, number of surgeries performed by young cardiovascular surgeons, and overtime work for surgery. Patients were categorized into pre-(group P: 29 patients) and post-integration (group A: 60 patients) groups, which were retrospectively compared. Results: Preoperative factors were not significantly different between the two groups. Operations accounted for 29 and 60 in groups P and A, respectively; they increased significantly after integration (p=0.005). Surgical mortality was 27.6 and 15% in groups P and A, respectively, with no significant difference (p=0.2). The referral rate was 17 (58.6%) and 21 (35%) patients in groups P and A, respectively; group A displayed a significantly lower referral rate (p=0.04). The interval from the onset of symptoms to arrival at the surgery cite was significantly reduced (p=0.01) in group A (112±140 min) compared to group P (206±201 min). There was no significant difference in the transfer distance between groups P (13.9±14.8 km) and A (13.5±16.2 km). The number of surgeries performed by young surgeons increased in 9 cases (31%) in group P and 34 cases (56.7%) in group A (p=0.02). Overtime work was substantially reduced:446±154 min in group P and 349±112 min in group A. Conclusion: Hospital integration resulted in increased number of acute aortic dissection surgeries and decreased interval time from the onset of symptoms to arrival at the surgery cite. The young surgeons performed more surgeries and reduced their overtime work.

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.

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.

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: 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.

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.