BACKGROUND: There is a discrepancy in the surgical and endoscopic literature for managing duodenal perforations. Although often managed conservatively, surgical repair is the standard treatment for duodenal perforations. This contrasts with the gastroenterology literature, which now recommends endoscopic repair of duodenal perforations, which are more frequently iatrogenic from the growing field of advanced endoscopic procedures. This study aims to provide a scoping review to summarize the current literature content and quality on endoscopic repair of duodenal perforations.
METHODS: The protocol for performing this scoping review was outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. All studies that reported primary outcomes of patients who had undergone endoscopic repair of duodenal perforations before February 2022, regardless of perforation etiology or repair type were reviewed, with studies after 1999 meeting inclusion criteria. The study excluded articles that did not report clinical outcomes of endoscopic repair, articles that did not describe where in the gastrointestinal tract the endoscopic repair occurred, pediatric patients, and animal studies.
RESULTS: 7606 abstracts were screened, with 474 full articles reviewed and 152 studies met inclusion criteria. 560 patients had duodenal perforations repaired endoscopically, with a technical success rate of 90.4% and a survival rate of 86.7%. Most of these perforations (74.5%) were iatrogenic from endoscopic procedures or surgery. Only one randomized control trial (RCT) was found, and 53% of studies were case reports.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that endoscopic repair could emerge as a viable first-line treatment for duodenal perforation and highlight the need for more high-quality research in this topic.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Management of ampullary tumors (AT) is challenging because of a low level of scientific evidence. This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of AT, either adenoma (AA) or carcinoma (AC), published in July 2023, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org).
METHODS: A collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of French medical, endoscopic, oncological and surgical societies involved in the management of AT. Recommendations are based on recent literature review and expert opinions and graded in three categories (A, B, C), according to quality of evidence.
RESULTS: Accurate diagnosis of AT requires at least duodenoscopy and EUS. All patients should be discussed in multidisciplinary tumor board before treatment. Surveillance may only be proposed for small AA in familial adenomatous polyposis. For AA, endoscopic papillectomy is the preferred option only if R0 resection can be achieved. When not possible, surgical papillectomy should be considered. For AC beyond pT1a N0, pancreaticoduodenectomy is the procedure of choice. Adjuvant monochemotherapy (gemcitabine, 5FU) may be proposed. For aggressive tumors (pT3/T4, pN+, R1, poorly differentiated AC, pancreatobiliary differentiation) with high risk of recurrence, 6 months polychemotherapy (CAPOX/FOLFOX for the intestinal subtype and mFOLFIRINOX for the pancreatobiliary or the mixed subtype) may be a valid alternative. Clinical and radiological follow up is recommended for 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines help to homogenize and highlight unmet needs in the management of AA and AC. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

暂无摘要。

Brain abscess is a rare complication of esophagogastro- duodenoscopy (EGD) with few reported cases in the literature. In this report, we discuss a patient presenting with altered mental status, headache, and dysarthria due to brain abscess caused by S. intermedius shortly after an EGD with an esophageal biopsy showing a new diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis. We highlight the rare association of EGD and brain abscess, and discuss the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Nonampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (NAD-NETs) are rare, with limited evidence regarding endoscopic treatment. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of well-differentiated NAD-NETs and evaluated long-term outcomes, including local recurrence and metastasis.
METHODS: Seventy-eight patients with NAD-NETs who underwent endoscopic resection between January 2011 and August 2022 were included. Clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment outcomes were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS: En-bloc resection was achieved for 74 tumors (94.9%) and R0 resection for 68 tumors (87.2%). Univariate analysis identified tumors in the second part of the duodenum, tumor size ≥10 mm, and muscularis propria invasion as risk factors for noncurative resection. Two patients with R1 resection (vertical margin involvement) and 2 patients with lymphovascular invasion underwent additional surgery. Four patients experienced adverse events (5.1%), including 2 cases of delayed bleeding and 2 cases of perforation, all successfully managed conservatively. During a median follow-up period of 62.6 months, recurrence and lymph node metastasis were only detected in 1 patient with R1 resection 3 months after the original procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic resection is safe and effective and provides a favorable long-term outcome for patients with well-differentiated NAD-NETs without regional lymph node or distant metastasis.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP) are novel endoscopic procedures for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET). However, consensus on how to use both procedures appropriately has not been established. In this study, we evaluated treatment outcomes of both procedures, including resectability.
In this single-center randomized controlled study conducted between January 2020 and June 2022, patients with SNADET ≤12 mm were randomly allocated to UEMR and CSP groups. The primary end point was sufficient vertical R0 resection (SVR0), which was defined as R0 resection including a sufficient submucosal layer. We compared treatment outcomes including SVR0 rate between groups.
The SVR0 rate was significantly higher in the UEMR group than in the CSP group (65.6% vs 41.5%, P = 0.01). By contrast, the R0 resection rate was not significantly different between study groups (70.3% vs 61.5%, P = 0.29). The submucosal layer thickness was significantly greater in the UEMR group than in the CSP group (median 546 [range, 309-833] μm vs 69 [0-295] μm, P < 0.01). CSP had a shorter total procedure time (median 12 [range, 8-16] min vs 1 [1-3] min, P < 0.01) and fewer total bleeding events (9.4% vs 1.5%, P = 0.06).
UEMR has superior vertical resectability compared with CSP, but CSP has a shorter procedure time and fewer bleeding events. Although CSP is preferable for most small SNADET, UEMR should be selected for lesions that cannot be definitively diagnosed as mucosal low-grade neoplasias.