Controversies in EUS-guided treatment of walled-off necrosis

Effect of a disposable endoscope precleaning kit in the cleaning procedure of gastrointestinal endoscope: A multi-center observational study

BACKGROUND

Precleaning is a key step in endoscopic reprocessing.

AIM

To develop an effective and economic endoscope cleaning method by using a disposable endoscope bedside precleaning kit.

METHODS

Altogether, 228 used gastrointestinal endoscopes were selected from five high-volume endoscopy units and precleaned by a traditional precleaning bucket (group T) or a disposable endoscope bedside precleaning kit (group D). Each group was further subdivided based on the replacement frequency of the cleaning solution, which was replaced every time in subgroups T1 and D1 and every several times in subgroups Ts and Ds. The adenosine triphosphate (ATP) level and residual proteins were measured three times: Before and after precleaning and after manual cleaning.

RESULTS

After precleaning, the precleaning kit significantly reduced the ATP levels (P = 0.034) and has a more stable ATP clearance rate than the traditional precleaning bucket. The precleaning kit also saved a quarter of the cost of enzymatic detergent used during the precleaning process. After manual cleaning, the ATP levels were also significantly lower in the precleaning kit group than in the traditional precleaning bucket group (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the number of uses of the cleaning solution (up to four times) has no significant impact on the cleaning effect (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Considering its economic cost and cleaning effect, the use of a disposable endoscope bedside precleaning kit can be an optimal option in the precleaning stage with the cleaning solution being replaced several times in the manual cleaning stage.

Managing complications of chronic pancreatitis: a guide for the gastroenterologist

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pancreatitis is a heterogeneous and complex syndrome that, in most cases, causes pain as a cardinal symptom and affects both the morphology and function of the pancreas, leading to several serious complications.

AREAS COVERED

The present review, based on a non-systematic PubMed search updated to June 2023, aims to present the current available evidence on the role of gastroenterologists in the diagnosis and treatment of both local and systemic complications by either endoscopic or medical treatments.

EXPERT OPINION

At diagnosis and during chronic pancreatitis follow-up, particular care is needed to consider not only the clinically manifest signs and symptoms of the disease, such as pain, jaundice, gastrointestinal obstruction, and pseudocysts, which require multidisciplinary discussion to establish the best treatment option (endoscopic or surgical), but also less evident systemic complications. Pancreatic exocrine and endocrine insufficiency, together with chronic inflammation, addiction, and dysbiosis, contribute to malnutrition, sarcopenia, and osteopathy. These complications, in turn, increase the risk of infection, thromboembolic events, and death. Patients with chronic pancreatitis also have an increased risk of psychiatric disorders and pancreatic cancer onset. Overall, patients with chronic pancreatitis should receive a holistic evaluation, considering all these aspects, possibly through multidisciplinary care in dedicated expert centers.

Endoscopic versus minimally invasive surgical approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10-20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or its periphery occurs. Although most have aseptic necrosis, 30% of cases will develop infectious necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) requires a critical treatment approach. Minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) and endoscopy are the management methods. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of MIS and endoscopic treatments.

METHODS

We searched a medical database until December 2022 to compare the results of endoscopic and MIS procedures for INP. We selected eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported treatment complications for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Five RCTs comparing a total of 284 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 139 patients underwent MIS, while 145 underwent endoscopic procedures. The results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in the risk ratios (RRs) for major complications (RR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.97), new onset of organ failure (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82), surgical site infection (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.92), fistula or perforation (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64), and pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.45). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for the endoscopic group compared to the MIS group, with a mean difference of 6.74 days (95% CI: -12.94 to -0.54). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the RR for death, bleeding, incisional hernia, percutaneous drainage, pancreatic endocrine deficiency, pancreatic exocrine deficiency, or the need for enzyme use.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic management of INP performs better compared to surgical treatment due to its lower complication rate and higher patient life quality.