A Comprehensive Analysis of Reported Adverse Events and Device Failures Associated with Esophageal Self-Expandable Metal Stents: An FDA MAUDE Database Study.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal Stents are used to maintain esophageal lumen patency in esophageal strictures caused by intrinsic and/or extrinsic malignancies and the occlusion of concomitant esophageal fistulas. While data on the efficacy and safety of esophageal stents exist, comprehensive evaluation of adverse events is limited. The aim of this study is to investigate the reported adverse events and device failures associated with esophageal self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) using the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. METHODS: Post-marketing surveillance data for the esophageal SEMSs were analyzed using the FDA's MAUDE database from January 2014 to December 10, 2023. The outcomes of interest were patient-related adverse events and device failures. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and SPSS. Pooled numbers and percentages were calculated for each adverse event. Continuous variables underwent analysis using a two-tailed student t test, and significance was set to p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: During the study period, 548 MAUDE reports revealed 873 device failures and 186 patient-related adverse events. The most common device issues were stent activation, positioning, or separation problems (4 n = 403; 46.2%), followed by device detachment or migration (n = 109, 12.5%), and material problems (n = 93, 10.7%). Patient complications included dysphagia/odynophagia (10%), perforation, pain, and bleeding (each 7.6%). The most common device failures in over-the-wire (OTW) stents and through-the-scope (TTS) stents were activation, positioning, or separation problems (TTS: n = 183, 52.6% vs OTW: n = 220, 41.9%). Compared to OTW stents, TTS stents had higher migration and breakage (13.5% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.24), and (9.2% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.08) respectively, while OTW stents had more challenges with stent advancement or removal (5.1% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001 and 4.6% vs 3.4%, p = 0.19, respectively) and material problems (14.7% vs. 4.6%, p < 0.001). Activation, positioning, and separation problems were the most frequent device failures in fully covered (FC) and partially covered (PC) stents (FC: n = 62, 32.8%, PC: n = 168, 43.5%). FC stents had higher migration rates (20.6% vs 9.8%, p < 0.001), while PC stents exhibited more material problems (17.4% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001) and difficulties with advancing the stents (6.7% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our examination showed a prevalence of reported device complications associated with stent activation, positioning, and separation problems. Dysphagia or odynophagia emerged as the most frequently reported patient complication. Furthermore, our analysis, provides insights into TTS vs. OTW and FC vs. PC esophageal SEMSs, enabling endoscopists and manufacturers to better understand adverse events and potentially optimize device design for future iterations.

Efficacy and Safety of Gastric Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (G-POEM): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) is an innovative treatment that has become increasingly utilized for patients with refractory gastroparesis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of G-POEM for the treatment of gastroparesis. METHODS: Individualized search strategies were developed through February 2021 in accordance with the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. This meta-analysis was performed by calculating pooled proportions and mean difference preprocedure and postprocedure with rates estimated using random effects models. Measured outcomes included technical success, clinical success, improvement in gastroparesis cardinal symptom index (GCSI), change in gastric emptying rate, alterations in impedance planimetry (functional lumen imaging probe [FLIP]) assessment, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies (n=797 patients; 67.41% female) were included. The mean age was 48.92±11.61 y, with an average duration of 4.24±1.11 y since gastroparesis diagnosis. Technical success was 98.47% [(95% CI: 97.14, 99.19);I2=0.00] with a mean myotomy length of 3.78±1.16 cm. In terms of clinical success, mean preprocedure GCSI scores were 3.38±0.37 and improved significantly postprocedure [weighted mean difference -1.56 (95% CI: -1.89 to -1.24); I2=82.53; P<0.001]. Gastric retention after 4 hours demonstrated ~50% improvement (preprocedure 43.08±9.24% versus postprocedure 22.97±10.19%; P<0.001). FLIP assessment with 40 mL and 50 mL balloons demonstrated a significant increase in diameter, distensibility index, and cross-sectional area postprocedure (all P<0.05). Procedure-associated adverse events occurred among 10.92% [(95% CI 5.09 to 19.32); I2=82.85] of patients. CONCLUSION: G-POEM appears safe and highly effective for the treatment of patients with refractory gastroparesis regardless of symptom predominance or etiology.

Endoscopic Management of Gastric Band Erosion: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric band erosion may be seen in up to 3% of patients. Endoscopic intervention has become increasingly utilized due to its minimally invasive nature. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the role of endoscopic removal for eroded gastric bands. METHODS: Individualized search strategies were developed for PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Outcomes included technical success, clinical success, procedure duration, adverse events, and surgical conversion. Pooled proportions were analyzed using random effects models. Heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed with I2 statistics and funnel plot asymmetry using Egger and Begg tests. Meta-regression was also performed comparing outcomes by endoscopic tools. RESULTS: Ten studies (n=282 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Mean age was 40.68±7.25 years with average duration of band placement of 38.49±19.88 months. Pre-operative BMI was 42.76±1.06 kg/m2 with BMI of 33.06±3.81 kg/m2 at time of band erosion treatment. Endoscopic removal was attempted in 240/282 (85.11%) of cases. Pooled technical and clinical success of the endoscopic therapy was 86.08% (95% CI: 79.42-90.83; I2=28.62%) and 85.34% (95% CI: 88.70-90.62; I2=38.56%), respectively. Mean procedure time for endoscopic removal was 46.47±11.52 min with an intra-operative adverse event rate of 4.15% (95% CI: 1.98-8.51; I2=0.00%). Post-procedure-associated adverse events occurred in 7.24% (CI: 4.46-11.55; I2=0.00%) of patients. Conversion to laparotomy/laparoscopy occurred in 10.54% (95% CI: 6.12-17.54) of cases. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic intervention is a highly effective and safe modality for the treatment of gastric band erosion.

Loop-and-let-go technique for the management of symptomatic large colonic lipoma.

Video 1We depict (1) identification of a large lipoma in the sigmoid colon; (2) radial echo endoscopy confirming diagnosis; (3) removal with the loop-and-let-go technique; (4) ex vivo demonstration of the technique; and (5) an interval follow-up demonstrating healing of the lesion.

Structured training program on confocal laser endomicroscopy for pancreatic cystic lesions: a multicenter prospective study among early-career endosonographers (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on how to teach endosonographers needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE)-guided histologic diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are limited. Hence, we developed and tested a structured educational program to train early-career endosonographers in nCLE-guided diagnosis of PCLs. METHODS: Twenty-one early-career nCLE-naïve endosonographers watched a teaching module outlining nCLE criteria for diagnosing PCLs. Participants then reviewed 80 high-yield nCLE videos, recorded diagnoses, and received expert feedback (phase 1). Observers were then randomized to a refresher feedback session or self-learning at 4 weeks. Eight weeks after training, participants independently assessed the same 80 nCLE videos without feedback and provided histologic predictions (phase 2). Diagnostic performance of nCLE to differentiate mucinous versus nonmucinous PCLs and to diagnose specific subtypes were analyzed using histopathology as the criterion standard. Learning curves were determined using cumulative sum analysis. RESULTS: Accuracy and diagnostic confidence for differentiating mucinous versus nonmucinous PCLs improved as endosonographers progressed through nCLE videos in phase 1 (P < .001). Similar trends were observed with the diagnosis of PCL subtypes. Most participants achieved competency interpreting nCLE, requiring a median of 38 assessments (range, 9-67). During phase 2, participants independently differentiated PCLs with high accuracy (89%), high confidence (83%), and substantial interobserver agreement (κ = .63). Accuracy for nCLE-guided PCL subtype diagnoses ranged from 82% to 96%. The learned nCLE skills did not deteriorate at 8 weeks and were not impacted by a refresher session. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a practical, effective, and durable educational intervention to train early-career endosonographers in nCLE-guided diagnosis of PCLs.

EUS-Guided Vascular Interventions.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has numerous advanced applications as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality in contemporary medicine. Through intraluminal placement, EUS offers a real-time Doppler-guided endoscopic visualization and access to intra-abdominal vasculature, which were previously inaccessible using historical methods. We aim to provide a comprehensive review of key studies on both current and future EUS-guided vascular applications. This review details EUS-based vascular diagnostic techniques of portal pressure measurements in the prognostication of liver disease and portal venous sampling for obtaining circulating tumor cells in the diagnosis of cancer. From an interventional perspective, we describe effective EUS-guided treatments via coiling and cyanoacrylate injections of gastric varices and visceral artery pseudoaneurysms. Specific attention is given to clinical studies on efficacy and procedural techniques described by investigators for each EUS-based application. We explore novel and future emerging EUS-based interventions, such as liver tumor ablation and intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement.

Prevalence of Colonic Polyps in Patients Undergoing Kidney Transplant Evaluation: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Colorectal canceris the third most common cancer worldwide, and kidney transplant patients have up to a 2.5-fold increased risk of colorectal cancer compared with the general population. Presently, colorectal cancer screening recommendations in kidney transplant candidates are the same as for the general population. We explored the literature on the prevalence of colonic polyps in patients with renal failure undergoing screening colonoscopy as part of kidney transplant evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception through June 2023 to identify studies that explored the prevalence of colonic polyps in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing a screening colonoscopy as part of their pretransplant evaluation. RESULTS: Of 937 patients, 371 had ≥1 polyp on their screening colonoscopy (39.6%; 95% CI, 29.3%-50.3%), 243 patients had ≥1 adenoma (25.9%; 95% CI, 14.3%- 39.6%), and 75 had ≥1 high-risk adenoma (8.7%; 95% CI, 6.9%-10.7%). Pooled analysis of the 2 studies comparing patients with end-stage renal disease versus matched control groups indicated higher pooled prevalence of adenomas in the end-stage renal disease group (33.4%) versus the control group (23.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest an average or increased prevalence of polyps and adenomatous polyps in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing colonoscopy during evaluation for kidney transplant. The pooled analysis of the studies comparing the end-stage renal disease population versus a matched control group indicates higher prevalence of adenomatous polyps in patients with end-stage renal disease. Multiple studies have shown that screening colonoscopy in this patient group is safe and does not delay kidney transplant evaluation or waitlistrates; hence, screening colonoscopy should be routinely considered.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus surgical gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND : Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) with peritoneal carcinomatosis presents a technical challenge. Surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) or enteral stenting have been the standard of care; however, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has emerged as a favorable alternative. Few data exist that compare these techniques in the setting of peritoneal carcinomatosis. METHODS : This single-center retrospective cohort study included 25 EUS-GE and 27 SGJ consecutive patients. Baseline demographics, cancer diagnosis and stage, clinical and technical success, adverse events, and obstruction recurrence data were collected. The primary outcome was the technical success comparison; secondary outcome was the adverse event rate comparison. Rates were compared with standard statistical tests. RESULTS : Mean age, obstruction location, and symptoms were similar between the groups. The EUS-GE group had more advanced disease (clinical stage 4, 100 % vs. 67 %; P = 0.006) and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (class 3-4, 92 % vs. 50 %; P = 0.004). The technical success rate was 100 % in both groups (P > 0.99) and the adverse event rate was lower for EUS-GE (8 % vs. 41 %; P = 0.01). Clinical success was 88 % for EUS-GE and 85 % for SGJ (P > 0.99) and recurrent obstruction was lower with EUS-GE (28 % vs. 41 %; P = 0.13). The EUS-GE group had shorter procedure duration, length of stay, and time to chemotherapy resumption than the SGJ group. CONCLUSIONS : Although the EUS-GE group was older, with more comorbidity and advanced stages, the technical success rate was similar to SGJ and it had significantly fewer adverse events. EUS-GE is a safe and effective option for the management of malignant GOO with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Primary obesity surgery endoluminal (POSE) for the treatment of obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Primary obesity surgery endoluminal (POSE) utilizes an incision-less operating platform system to create full-thickness plications in the gastric fundus and body (original POSE). Many studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of original POSE for the treatment of obesity. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature in an attempt to evaluate the outcomes of original POSE per the ASGE task force thresholds. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were systematically searched for studies assessing the outcomes of POSE for the treatment of obesity. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that assessed outcomes of POSE were included. Studies were included if they reported percent total weight loss (%TWL) or percent excess weight loss (%EWL) and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAE). RESULTS: A total of seven studies with 613 patients were included. Two included studies were RCTs, while the remaining were observational studies. Pooled mean %EWL at 3-6 months and 12-15 months were 42.62 (95% CI 37.56-47.68) and 48.86 (95% CI 42.31-55.41), respectively. Pooled mean %TWL at 3-6 months and 12-15 months was 13.45 (95% CI 8.93-17.97) and 12.68 (95% CI 8.13-17.23), respectively. Subgroup analysis of two RCTs showed that weight loss at 1 year was significantly higher in POSE patients (%EWL difference in means 19.45 (95% CI 4.65-34.24, p value = 0.01). The overall incidence of serious adverse events was only 2.84% and included GI bleeding, extra-gastric bleeding, hepatic abscess, severe pain, severe nausea, and severe vomiting. The mean number of total anchors placed in the fundus and body was 13.18 (95% CI 11.77-14.58), and the mean procedure time was 44.55 min (95% CI 36.44-52.65). CONCLUSION: POSE, a minimally invasive endoscopic bariatric therapy, is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of obesity. The outcomes of POSE meet and surpass the ASGE joint task force thresholds. Future studies should evaluate newer versions of this procedure that emphasize gastric body plication sparing the fundus.

Endoscopic revision of gastrojejunal anastomosis for the treatment of dumping syndrome in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dumping syndrome is a known complication of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Recently, endoscopic gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA) revision has been employed as a treatment option. The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the role of endoscopic GJA revision in patients with RYGB for the treatment of dumping syndrome. METHODS: Search strategies were developed for PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception through December 2020 in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Pooled proportions with rates estimated using random effects models were used. Outcomes included pooled technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and rate of reintervention. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics and publication bias by funnel plot using Egger and Begg tests. RESULTS: Six studies (n = 263 patients; 60.25% female) were included (1 prospective and 5 retrospective). Mean age was 46.27 ± 2.54 years. Average patient weight was 95.59 ± 4.78 kg, BMI of 41.43 ± 3.07 kg/m2, and pre-procedure GJA size of 32.23 ± 8.68 mm. Pooled technical and clinical success was 98.15% and 89.5%. Among studies reporting Sigstad scores, endoscopic GJA revision resulted in a significant improvement [mean Sigstad score difference of - 9.96 (95% CI, - 19.951 to - 0.975); P < 0.03]. Mean procedure time was 37.12 ± 10.40 min with an intra-procedural adverse event rate of 2.42%. Over a mean follow-up of 8.03 ± 6.87 months, post-procedure adverse events occurred in 2.96% of patients with a reintervention rate of 11.54%. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that endoscopic GJA revision appears an effective and safe treatment for dumping syndrome.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a novel endoscopic technique for the resection of GI lesions not amenable to standard endoscopic therapy. The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate EFTR for the resection of colorectal lesions. METHODS: Individualized searches were developed through October 2020 in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Random-effects models were used to determine pooled technical success, margin-negative (R0) resection, adverse events, procedure duration, and rate of recurrence at follow-up. Subgroup analysis was used to assess the impact of specific procedure techniques and regression analyses to determine influence of lesion size. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics and publication bias by funnel plots using Egger and Begg tests. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (1936 subjects; 39.6% women) were included. Most EFTR lesions were located in the colon (75.8%) with the remaining in the rectum. Mean procedure duration was 45.4 ± 11.4 minutes. Pooled technical success was 87.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.1-89.8; I2 = 33), R0 resection rate was 78.8% (95% CI, 75.7-81.5; I2 = 33), procedure-associated adverse events occurred in 12.2% (95% CI, 9.3-15.9; I2 = 61), and recurrence rate was 12.6% (95% CI, 11.1-14.4; I2 = 0) over an average weighted follow-up of 20.1 ± 3.8 weeks. Regression analyses revealed significantly lower R0 resection (odds ratio, .3; 95% CI, .2-.6; I2 = 61; P = .0003) and higher overall procedure-associated adverse event rates (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.8-7.2; I2 = 55; P = .0004) for lesions >20 mm. CONCLUSIONS: EFTR overall appears to be an effective modality with high technical success and R0 resection rate with a relatively low risk of adverse events and recurrence, with greatest success when lesions are <20 mm.

Endoscopic gallbladder drainage for symptomatic gallbladder disease: a cumulative systematic review meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural or endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-based transpapillary drainage may provide alternative treatment strategies for high-risk surgical candidates with symptomatic gallbladder (GB) disease. The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic GB drainage for patients with symptomatic GB disease. METHODS: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were performed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Pooled proportions were calculated for measured outcomes including technical success, clinical success, adverse event rate, recurrence rate, and rate of reintervention. Subgroup analyses were performed for transmural versus transpapillary, transmural lumen apposing stent (LAMS), and comparison to percutaneous transhepatic drainage. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Publication bias was ascertained by funnel plot and Egger regression testing. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies (n = 1538) were included. Overall, endoscopic GB drainage achieved a technical and clinical success of 87.33% [(95% CI 84.42-89.77); I2 = 39.55] and 84.16% [(95% CI 80.30-87.38); I2 = 52.61], with an adverse event rate of 11.00% [(95% CI 9.25-13.03); I2 = 7.08]. On subgroup analyses, EUS-guided transmural compared to ERC-assisted transpapillary drainage resulted in higher technical and clinical success rates [OR 3.91 (95% CI 1.52-10.09); P = 0.005 and OR 4.59 (95% CI 1.84-11.46); P = 0.001] and lower recurrence rate [OR 0.17 (95% CI 0.06-0.52); P = 0.002]. Among EUS-guided LAMS studies, technical success was 94.65% [(95% CI 91.54-96.67); I2 = 0.00], clinical success was 92.06% [(95% CI 88.65-94.51); I2 = 0.00], and adverse event rate was 11.71% [(95% CI 8.92-15.23); I2 = 0.00]. Compared to percutaneous drainage, EUS-guided drainage possessed a similar efficacy and safety with significantly lower rate of reintervention [OR 0.05 (95% CI 0.02-0.13); P < 0.001]. DISCUSSION: Endoscopic GB drainage is a safe and effective treatment for high-risk surgical candidates with symptomatic GB disease. EUS-guided transmural drainage is superior to transpapillary drainage and associated with a lower rate of reintervention compared to percutaneous transhepatic drainage.

Test Characteristics of Abdominal Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Gastro-gastric Fistula in Patients with Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrogastric fistulae (GGF) occur in 1-6% of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients. Many patients undergo abdominal computed tomography (CT) as an initial test owing to its wide availability; however, CT diagnostic accuracy for GGF is unclear. Our aim was to evaluate test characteristics of abdominal CT compared to upper gastrointestinal series (UGI) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for diagnosing GGF using surgery as a gold standard. METHODS: Retrospective review of RYGB patients who underwent abdominal CT with oral contrast within 1 year. Demographics, weight parameters, and symptoms were collected. Surgery within 1 year of the diagnostic tests was included as the gold standard comparison. Primary outcomes included CT sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy (DA) for GGF. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients were included, where 42 (30.1%) had positive CT and 95 (69.3%) had negative CT for GGF. Compared to surgical confirmation, CT abdomen with PO contrast had sensitivity of 73.1% (59-84.4), specificity of 95.2% (88.3-98.7), PPV 90.5% (77.4-97.3), NPV of 85.1% (76.3-91.2), and DA 89.7%. UGI series had sensitivity of 58.5% (42.1-73.7), specificity of 98.8% (93.5-99.9), PPV of 96% (79.7-99.9), NPV of 82.8% (73.9-89.7), and diagnostic accuracy (DA) of 85.4%. EGD had sensitivity of 78.3% (63.6-89.1), specificity of 98.8% (93.5-99.9), PPV 97.3 (85.8-99.9), and DA 91.5%. There were no significant differences in diagnostic test characteristics among modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal CT with oral contrast has similar diagnostic test characteristics to UGI and EGD at detecting GGF when using surgical diagnosis as a gold standard.

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) compared with conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly utilized to overcome the complexity of conventional ESD. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of hybrid ESD for treatment of colorectal lesions. METHODS: Search strategies were developed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Pooled proportions were calculated with rates estimated using random effects models. Measured outcomes included en bloc resection, procedure-associated complications, recurrence, and need for surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare effectiveness of conventional versus hybrid ESD. RESULTS: 16 studies (751 patients) were included with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) lesion size of 27.96 (10.55) mm. En bloc resection rate was 81.63 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 72.07 - 88.44; I2  = 80.89). Complications, recurrences, and need for surgery occurred in 7.74 % (95 %CI 4.78 - 12.31; I2  = 65.84), 4.52 % (95 %CI 1.40 - 13.65; I2  = 76.81), and 3.64 % (95 %CI 1.76 - 7.37; I2  = 15.52), respectively. Mean procedure duration was 48.83 (22.37) minutes. On subgroup analyses comparing outcomes for conventional (n = 1703) versus hybrid ESD (n = 497), procedure duration was significantly shorter for hybrid ESD (mean difference 18.45 minutes; P = 0.003), with lower complication rates (P = 0.04); however, hybrid ESD had lower en bloc resection rates (P < 0.001). There was no difference in rates of recurrence or surgery (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: While hybrid ESD was safe and effective for removal of colorectal lesions, with shorter procedure duration, fewer complications, and no difference in recurrence versus conventional ESD, hybrid ESD was associated with a lower en bloc resection rate.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided, Percutaneous, and Transjugular Liver Biopsy: A Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Percutaneous liver biopsy (PCLB) or transjugular liver biopsy (TJLB) have traditionally been performed to obtain a sample of hepatic tissue; however, endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUSLB) has become an attractive alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EUSLB, PCLB, and TJLB. METHODS: Search strategies were developed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Major outcomes included the following: adequacy of biopsy specimens (i.e., complete portal triads [CPT], total specimen length [TSL] in mm, and length of longest piece [LLP]) in mm), and rate of adverse events. Only studies comparing all biopsy approaches (i.e., EUSLB, PCLB, and TJLB) were included. RESULTS: Five studies (EUSLB [n=301]; PCLB [n=176]; and TJLB [n=179]) were included. Biopsy cumulative adequacy rates for EUSLB, PCLB, and TJLB were 93.51%, 98.27%, and 97.61%, respectively. Based on the subgroup analysis limited to EUS biopsy needles in current clinical practice, there was no difference in biopsy adequacy or adverse events for EUSLB compared to PCLB and TJLB (all p>0.050). A comparison of EUSLB and PCLB revealed no difference between specimens regarding both CPT (p=0.079) and LLP (p=0.085); however, a longer TSL (p<0.001) was observed. Compared to TJLB, EUSLB showed no difference in LLP (p=0.351), fewer CPT (p=0.042), and longer TSL (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: EUSLB appears to be a safe, minimally invasive procedure that is comparable to PCLB and TJLB regarding biopsy specimens obtained and rate of adverse events associated with each method.

Intragastric Balloon Versus Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty for the Treatment of Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to individually evaluate IGB and ESG procedures and compare the efficacy, durability, and safety of these procedures. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were systematically searched for studies investigating the use of IGB and ESG for the treatment of obesity. Studies reporting percent total weight loss (%TWL) or percent excess weight loss (%EWL) with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included in the final analysis. Only 1 study directly compared ESG to IGB, 9 studies evaluated ESG alone, while 18 studies evaluated IGB. At 12-month follow-up after ESG, mean %TWL was 17.51 (95% CI 16.44-18.58), and %EWL was 60.51 (95% CI 54.39-66.64). Mean %TWL and %EWL after IGB at 12 months was 10.35 (95% CI 8.38-12.32) and 29.65 (95% CI 25.40-33.91), respectively. Mean %TWL and %EWL after IGB were significantly decreased at 18 or 24 months compared to 6 months indicating weight regain after IGB removal. ESG achieved significantly superior weight loss compared to IGB, the difference in mean %TWL was 7.33 (95% CI 5.22-9.44, p value = 0.0001) at 12 months. Serious adverse events were observed in < 5% for both procedures. CONCLUSION: Although ESG and IGB are safe and effective for weight loss, our study suggests that ESG results in more significant and sustained weight loss. Nevertheless, a variety of approaches are essential to care for this underserved population, and there are several factors other than weight loss that should be considered in selecting the ideal therapy for individual patients.

Efficacy of digital single-operator cholangioscopy in the visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Indeterminate biliary strictures remain a significant diagnostic challenge. Digital single-operator cholangioscopy (D-SOC) incorporates digital imaging which enables higher resolution for better visualization and diagnosis of biliary pathology. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature in an attempt to determine the efficacy of D-SOC in the visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. All D-SOC studies that reported the diagnostic performance in visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures and biliary malignancies were included. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. All data were extracted and pooled to construct a 2 × 2 table. The visual interpretation of D-SOC was compared to resected surgical specimens or clinical follow-up in the included patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, prevalence, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), and diagnostic odds ratio (OR) were calculated. The summarized receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve corresponding with the area under the curve (AUC) was also analyzed. RESULTS: The search yielded 465 citations. Of these, only six studies with a total of 283 procedures met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of D-SOC in the visual interpretation of biliary malignancies was 94% (95% CI 89-97) and 95% (95%CI 90-98), respectively, while +LR, -LR, diagnostic OR, and AUC were 15.20 (95%CI 5.21-44.33), 0.08 (95%CI 0.04-0.14), 308.83 (95%CI 106.46-872.82), and 0.983, respectively. The heterogeneity among 6 included studies was moderate for specificity (I2 = 0.51) and low for sensitivity (I2 = 0.17) and diagnostic OR (I2 = 0.00). CONCLUSION: D-SOC is associated with high sensitivity and specificity in the visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures and malignancies. D-SOC should be considered routinely in the diagnostic workup of indeterminate biliary lesions.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for treatment of rectal tumors: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While multiple studies have evaluated endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) to remove large rectal tumors, there remains a paucity of data to evaluate their comparative efficacy and safety. The primary aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to compare efficacy and safety of ESD versus TEM for the treatment of rectal tumors. METHODS: Individualized search strategies were developed from inception through November 2018 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Measured outcomes included pooled enbloc resection rates, margin-negative (R0) resection rates, procedure-associated adverse events, and rates of recurrence. This was a cumulative meta-analysis performed by calculating pooled proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran Q test and I2 statistics, and publication bias by funnel plot using Egger and Begg tests. RESULTS: Three studies (n = 158 patients; 55.22% male) were included in this meta-analysis. Patients with ESD compared to TEM had similar age (P = 0.090), rectal tumor size (P = 0.108), and diagnosis rate of adenoma to cancer (P = 0.53). ESD lesions were more proximal as compared to TEM (8.41 ± 3.49 vs. 5.11 ± 1.43 cm from the anal verge; P < 0.001). Procedure time and hospital stay were shorter for ESD compared to TEM [(79.78 ± 24.45 vs. 116.61 ± 19.35 min; P < 0.001) and (3.99 ± 0.32 vs. 5.83 ± 0.94 days; P < 0.001), respectively]. No significant differences between enbloc resection rates [OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.22-4.33); P = 0.98; I2 = 0.00%] and R0 resection rates [OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.36-3.76); P = 0.80; I2 = 0.00%] were noted between ESD and TEM. ESD and TEM reported similar rates of adverse events [OR 1.15 (95% CI 0.47-2.77); P = 0.80; I2 = 0.00%] and rates of recurrence [OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.07-3.14); P = 0.43; I2 = 0.00%]. CONCLUSION: ESD and TEM possess similar rates of resection, adverse events, and recurrence for patients with large rectal tumors; however, ESD is associated with significantly shorter procedure times and duration of hospitalization. Future studies are needed to evaluate healthcare utilization for these two strategies.