Search

The goal of this review is to critically analyze the current literature regarding the management of incidental pancreatic cysts. Given their increased rates of detection due to the frequent use of cross-sectional imaging, correctly identifying the subset of high risk lesions that are appropriate for surgical resection is critical. However, the existing consensus and societal guidelines discussed in this review lack high quality data to create evidence-based recommendations, making achieving this important aim challenging. Several recent studies have focused on the natural history of pancreatic cysts and defining the role of endoscopic ultrasound, which remains unclear. EUS-guided diagnostic tools include molecular analysis of obtained fluid; EUS-guided FNA, FNB, and intracystic forceps biopsy of the cyst wall; and confocal endomicroscopy. While their precise role in diagnosing pancreatic cystic neoplasms remains to be defined, they represent promising innovations that may play a future role in cyst assessment and management. Large, long-term, prospective studies of incidentally identified pancreatic cysts are essential to fully understand their natural history and potential for neoplastic progression. Given the absence of such data at present, an individualized patient approach is recommended.

Numerous outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multi-drug resistant bacteria have recently been reported. Unlike prior episodes of endoscope-transmitted infections, the latest outbreaks have occurred despite strict adherence to duodenoscope reprocessing guidelines. The current standard for all flexible endoscope reprocessing includes pre-cleaning, leak testing, an additional manual cleaning step, and high-level disinfection. When these steps are strictly followed, the risk of infection transmission during endoscopy is exceedingly rare. However, due to its complex design, the duodenoscope may not be able to be adequately disinfected using the current reprocessing standards. Supplemental measures to enhance scope reprocessing have subsequently been recommended to reduce the infection risk in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. These methods are likely short-term solutions that have yet to be validated regarded their effectiveness. Additional approaches to monitor the quality of duodenoscope reprocessing may also be useful. Ultimately, a definitive, yet logistically feasible, method of duodenoscope reprocessing is required to ensure the safety of our patients.