Search

The progress of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment for inflammatory diseases of the biliary tract and pancreas have been remarkable. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS‐elastography are used for the diagnosis of early chronic pancreatitis and evaluation of endocrine and exocrine function in chronic pancreatitis. Notably, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy have improved the endoscopic stone removal rate in patients for whom pancreatic stone removal is difficult. Studies have reported the use of self‐expanding metal stents for stent placement for pancreatic duct stenosis and EUS‐guided pancreatic drainage for refractory pancreatic duct strictures. Furthermore, EUS‐guided drainage using a double‐pigtailed plastic stent has been performed for the management of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection after acute pancreatitis. Recently, lumen‐apposing metal stents have led to advances in the treatment of walled‐off necrosis after acute pancreatitis. EUS‐guided biliary drainage is an alternative to refractory endoscopic biliary drainage and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for the treatment of acute cholangitis. The placement of an inside stent followed by switching to uncovered self‐expanding metal stents in difficult‐to‐treat cases has been proposed for acute cholangitis by malignant biliary obstruction. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage is an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage for severe and some cases of moderate acute cholecystitis. EUS‐guided gallbladder drainage has been reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage. However, it is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each drainage method and select the optimal drainage method for each case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: Narrow band imaging (NBI) magnification analysis has entered use in clinical settings to diagnose colorectal tumors. Pit pattern analysis with magnifying endoscopy is already widely used to assess colorectal lesions and invasion depth. Our study compared diagnoses by vascular pattern analysis and pit pattern analysis with NBI magnification.Methods: We examined 296 colorectal lesions-15 hyperplastic polyps (HP), 213 low-grade adenomas (L-Ad), 26 high-grade adenomas (H-Ad), 31 with intramucosal to scanty submucosal invasion (M-Sm-s), and 11 with massive submucosal invasion (Sm-m)-applying the system of Kudo et al. to analyze pit patterns, and the system of Tanaka et al. to analyze and classify vascular patterns by NBI into three categories: type A (hyperplasia pattern), type B (adenomatous pattern), and type C (carcinomatous pattern). Type C cases were subdivided into subtypes C1, C2, and C3. We used this system to examine histology type and invasion depth.Results: Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 100% for both type II pit pattern HP and type A HP. Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85.4, 94.5, and 93.2% for Vi and Vn pit pattern cancer and 95.2, 91.7, and 92.2% for type C cancer (no significant differences in sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy). Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were comparable for Vi high-grade irregularity and Vn pit pattern Sm-m (90.9, 96.8, and 96.7%) and type C2/C3 Sm-m (90.1, 98.2, and 98.0%), with no significant differences in sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy.Conclusions: Vascular pattern analysis by NBI magnification proved comparable to pit pattern analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We performed a randomized prospective trial to compare unsedated endoscopy via transnasal and transoral routes using a small-caliber endoscope. Two hundred patients referred for diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were randomly allocated to two groups: those undergoing transnasal (TN) and transoral (TO) endoscopy. We examined the insertion rate, examination duration, nasal pain, pharyngeal pain, number of occurrences of pharyngeal reflex, severity of discomfort throughout the examination, and rate of adverse events. Patients were asked to rate the severity of their pain or discomfort on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). We identified statistically significant differences between the TN and TO groups in rate of insertion (95% versus 100%, respectively, P < 0.05) and examination duration (9.7 +/- 3.0 min versus 8.4 +/- 2.7 min, respectively, P < 0.005). Severity of discomfort throughout the examination was comparable in the TN and TO groups (3.0 +/- 1.8 versus 2.9 +/- 2.3, NS). Nasal bleeding occurred as an adverse event in 4.1% of patients in the TN group. Patients in the TO group were more likely than those in the TN group to prefer the present method in the subsequent endoscopic examination (99.0% versus 82.1%, P < 0.00005). These results indicated that transoral insertion is superior to transnasal insertion in endoscopy procedures performed with small-caliber endoscope. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2009, diagnostic criteria for early chronic pancreatitis (DCECP2009) were proposed by the Japan Pancreas Society. This study aimed to evaluate the interobserver reliability (IOR) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) criteria for diagnosis of early chronic pancreatitis (ECP) between DCECP2009 and 2019 diagnostic criteria for ECP (DCECP2019) to assess the validity of the revision from the perspective of EUS findings. Among patients who underwent a detailed observation of the pancreas by EUS at our institution between January 2018 and March 2019, EUS images of 97 patients were extracted. Images were reviewed by 12 gastrointestinal endoscopy experts (eight pancreatologists, group A and four nonpancreatologists, group B). The overall kappa (K)-values for the IOR of the DCECP2009 EUS criteria were 0.424 and 0.563:0.231 for groups A:B, whereas the overall K-values for the DCECP2019 criteria were 0.618, and 0.733:0.442 for groups A:B. Regarding changes in the final diagnosis of ECP based on clinical features and EUS findings, 20 cases were definite ECP, 53 were probable ECP, and 24 were normal according to DCECP2009. In contrast, seven were definite ECP, 19 were probable ECP, and 71 were normal according to DECEP2019. IOR of DCECP2019 was higher than that of DCECP2009, which indicates an improvement in precision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]