← Issue №11/ week of Sep 13, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Endoscopy, in full.

All 10 Endoscopy papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
Filter

All 10, in full

most clinically useful first
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=109 · Sep 9, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

A prospective clinical trial of eus-shear wave measurement of liver and spleen for hepatic fibrosis.

DiagnosticcirrhosisEUSbiomarker
Clinical takeawayFor EUS patients undergoing the procedure and requiring cirrhosis assessment, perform right-lobe and splenic shear wave stiffness measurement using standard transducer pressure. Splenic measurement is highly accurate for cirrhosis detection (AUC 0.962), outperforming APRI and FIB4. Do not rely on EUS-SWM for intermediate fibrosis staging (F2-F3).
What it foundSplenic shear wave stiffness via EUS identified cirrhosis with AUC 0.962, outperforming APRI and FIB4; hepatic stiffness correlated strongly with histologic fibrosis (left lobe r=0.837-0.872, right lobe r=0.748-0.766).
ContextRefines non-invasive cirrhosis detection for the subset of patients already undergoing EUS, with superior accuracy compared to serology-based APRI and FIB4 scores. No head-to-head comparison with transient elastography, the current standard non-invasive test, so relative positioning unclear.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Kohli DR … Srikureja W · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Sep 9, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Ampullary Neoplasms: Expert Review.

Guideline / reviewguideline
Clinical takeawayFor patients with suspected ampullary adenoma, use a side-viewing duodenoscope (not forward-viewing gastroscope) with careful biopsy technique-avoiding the pancreatic orifice to minimize pancreatitis risk-and obtain at least 6 biopsies, prioritizing ulcerated or indurated areas, to assess for occult malignancy. Perform EUS staging in adenomas considered for endoscopic resection, except lesions <1 cm with no worrisome features.
What it found20%-40% of ampullary adenomas harbor malignancy; AGA recommends side-viewing duodenoscope assessment with at least 6 biopsies from ulcerated or indurated areas, and EUS staging for adenomas amenable to endoscopic resection.
ContextAmpullary neoplasia is rare (0.6%-0.8% of GI cancers) with 5-year survival ranging 20%-75% by stage. This AGA expert review fills a documented gap in formalized guidance and standardizes assessment technique, particularly relevant given rising incidence in young adults.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), 'Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline', 2021 (Vanbiervliet G, Strijker M, Arvanitakis M, et al. Endoscopy 2021;53(4):429-448; DOI 10.1055/a-1397-3198; PMID 33728632)

Decision at stakedetermine which ampullary adenomas are candidates for endoscopic versus surgical management

For malignancy, ESGE recommends pancreaticoduodenectomy including lymphadenectomy for ampullary lesions of stage T1 or higher, including when pathology after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy reveals T1 adenocarcinoma (strong, low); for Tis ampullary cancer, transduodenal ampullectomy or endoscopic papillectomy may be considered sufficient when final pathology shows no residual disease (strong, low).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes TREATMENT, PROPHYLAXIS, BILIARY DRAINAGE and 1 more.

Our full summary of this standard

ESGE 2021 gates everything on proven adenoma. ESGE recommends AGAINST diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma has not been proven (strong, low), and recommends histological confirmation by endoscopic biopsies in the case of low-grade-dysplasia adenoma before initiating any treatment (strong, low). Assessment uses a side-viewing endoscope when an ampullary tumor is suspected (strong, moderate); the cap-assisted method is suggested only when the papilla is not seen on forward-viewing endoscopy (weak, moderate); high-resolution virtual chromoendoscopy is suggested for diagnosis and staging (weak, low). Staging is EUS plus abdominal MRCP (strong, low); IDUS is suggested only in selected patients, with routine use balanced against training, cost and pancreatitis risk (weak, low). ESGE suggests that IHC, K-ras and p53 evaluation, PCR, and microsatellite instability testing should NOT routinely be applied to ampullary tumor biopsies to inform prognosis or potential treatment response (weak, low). TREATMENT: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension (strong, moderate), and en bloc resection of adenomas up to 20-30 mm to achieve R0 (strong, low). Technique is direct snare resection WITHOUT submucosal injection (strong, moderate) - but submucosal injection IS recommended before EMR of the extrapapillary duodenal-wall component of a laterally spreading ampullary tumor (strong, moderate); LST-p can be managed endoscopically, accepting higher intraprocedural and delayed bleeding risk (strong, low). ESGE suggests avoiding any biliary, pancreatic or biductal sphincterotomy prior to papillectomy (weak, very low) and suggests endocut current (weak, low). PROPHYLAXIS: prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting is recommended to reduce post-papillectomy pancreatitis (strong, moderate); ESGE suggests routine rectal administration of 100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before papillectomy in all patients without NSAID contraindication (weak, low); if PD stenting is not possible, high-volume lactated Ringer's hydration is suggested (weak, low). Prophylactic hemostasis is individualized (strong, very low). SURGERY: ESGE only SUGGESTS considering surgical treatment when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e.g. periampullary diverticulum, size >4 cm) and in the case of intraductal involvement of >20 mm - and surveillance thereafter is still mandatory (weak, low). For adenoma with intraductal extension of 20 mm or less, ESGE suggests complementary techniques in expert centers (thermal ablation by cystotome, or RFA) with temporary biliary stenting (weak, low). For malignancy, ESGE recommends pancreaticoduodenectomy including lymphadenectomy for ampullary lesions of stage T1 or higher, including when pathology after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy reveals T1 adenocarcinoma (strong, low); for Tis ampullary cancer, transduodenal ampullectomy or endoscopic papillectomy may be considered sufficient when final pathology shows no residual disease (strong, low). BILIARY DRAINAGE: ESGE recommends against routine preoperative biliary drainage in surgically eligible ampullary cancer, reserving it for cholangitis, severe symptomatic jaundice (e.g. intense pruritus), delayed surgery, or before neoadjuvant chemotherapy in jaundiced patients (strong, moderate); when required, endoscopic SEMS insertion (strong, moderate); ERCP with SEMS in palliative settings (strong, high). FOLLOW-UP: long-term monitoring after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy by duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and yearly thereafter for at least 5 years (strong, low). On recurrence, assess local extent with endoscopy plus biopsies, EUS and MRCP before any treatment (strong, low); benign residual or recurrent lesions may be managed endoscopically including APC and EMR (weak, low).

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), 'Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline', 2021 (Vanbiervliet G, Strijker M, Arvanitakis M, et al. Endoscopy 2021;53(4):429-448; DOI 10.1055/a-1397-3198; PMID 33728632) · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Barakat M … Chahal P · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=681 · Sep 9, 2026 · Clin Transl Gastro · IF 3.4

Topical Vitamin C and N-Acetylcysteine for Reducing Symptoms After Lugol Chromoendoscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

New therapyendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayApply topical 2% vitamin C solution or 10% N-acetylcysteine immediately after Lugol chromoendoscopy to reduce post-procedure discomfort. At 15 minutes, symptom rates drop from 44% (saline) to 8-9%; at 30 minutes from 32% to 4%. This simple intervention requires no special equipment beyond standard endoscopy supplies.
What it foundTopical 2% vitamin C solution and 10% N-acetylcysteine each reduced post-Lugol symptoms to 8.8% and 9.4% incidence at 15 minutes, versus 44.3% with saline (relative risks 0.198 and 0.213), and to 4.2% and 4.1% at 30 minutes (relative risks 0.132 and 0.129).
ContextLugol chromoendoscopy detects esophageal squamous neoplasia effectively but has been limited by short-term pharyngeal and retrosternal discomfort. This is the first randomized evidence that immediate topical application of vitamin C or NAC substantially reduces symptoms, offering a practical in-procedure tool to improve screening tolerance.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Fu X … Tian S · Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology · IF 3.4 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=108 · Sep 8, 2026 · Clin Transl Gastro · IF 3.4

Greener Choices in Biliary Imaging: A Prospective Carbon Footprint Comparison of EUS versus MRCP for Intermediate-Likelihood Choledocholithiasis.

New evidencecholedocholithiasisEUShealth services
Clinical takeawayFor intermediate-likelihood CBD stones, EUS and MRCP remain diagnostically equivalent per guidelines. On carbon-intensive grids, EUS reduces per-procedure emissions 4.2-fold compared to MRCP (4.53 vs 18.90 kg CO2e), adding environmental impact to the accuracy, safety, and cost decision. On low-carbon grids, this advantage narrows and may not apply. Where available and suitable, consider EUS accounting for local grid carbon intensity, patient preference, and local expertise.
What it foundEUS generated 4.53 kg CO2e per procedure versus MRCP 18.90 kg CO2e (4.2-fold difference); MRCP's continuous cryocooler standby was the largest single contributor to emissions (23.4%).
ContextConfirms diagnostic equivalence of EUS and MRCP per guidelines. Introduces environmental footprint as a new decision discriminator; this is the first direct carbon comparison of these two biliary imaging modalities. Environmental advantage is greatest on carbon-intensive grids.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), "ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis" (Buxbaum JL et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89(6):1075-1105), 2019

Decision at stakeWhich confirmatory imaging modality to use for intermediate-likelihood choledocholithiasis

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Risk-stratify suspected choledocholithiasis (high >50%, intermediate 10-50%, low <10% probability). HIGH-risk criteria, any of which should directly prompt ERCP: (1) CBD stone on ultrasound or cross-sectional imaging; (2) ascending cholangitis; (3) total bilirubin >4 mg/dL AND dilated CBD (>6 mm in adults with gallbladder in situ, >8 mm after cholecystectomy). Gallstone pancreatitis was deliberately REMOVED as a high-risk criterion in the 2019 revision. INTERMEDIATE risk (abnormal liver biochemical tests, age >55 y, or bile-duct dilation on imaging): the panel suggests confirmation with either EUS or MRCP (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence; choice by patient preference, local expertise, availability), laparoscopic intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) or intraoperative US are equally sanctioned alternatives. LOW risk: cholecystectomy with or without IOC/intraoperative US if indicated for symptomatic cholelithiasis; no ERCP and no mandatory advanced biliary imaging. In gallstone pancreatitis WITHOUT cholangitis or biliary obstruction/choledocholithiasis, the panel recommends AGAINST urgent (<48 h) ERCP (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). Same-admission cholecystectomy is recommended for patients with MILD gallstone pancreatitis (consensus, PONCHO-based); ERCP with prophylactic sphincterotomy should not be used as an alternative to cholecystectomy unless surgery is absolutely contraindicated (e.g., recurrent pancreatitis in end-stage liver disease). For large bile-duct stones, the panel suggests endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by large-balloon dilation (ES-LBD) rather than sphincterotomy alone (conditional, moderate); for large AND difficult stones, it suggests intraductal therapy (cholangioscopy-guided EHL or laser lithotripsy) or conventional therapy with papillary dilation, chosen by local expertise, cost, and patient/physician preference (conditional, very low). Timing versus cholecystectomy: pre- or postoperative ERCP or laparoscopic bile-duct clearance for patients at high risk or with positive IOC, depending on local surgical and endoscopic expertise (consensus).

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), "ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis" (Buxbaum JL et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89(6):1075-1105), 2019 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Rughwani H … Reddy DN · Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology · IF 3.4 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=233 · Sep 8, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

Endoscopic management of duodenal lesions in familial adenomatous polyposis: A tertiary referral center experience.

New evidencefamilial adenomatous polyposispolypectomy
Clinical takeawayFor FAP patients with duodenal lesions, endoscopic surveillance with cold snare polypectomy is safe and effective; for ampullary lesions, selective papillectomy carries low morbidity and low progression risk (selection criteria detailed in the source). This tertiary-center experience supports systematic endoscopic management as feasible in referral practice.
What it foundEndoscopic surveillance and treatment at a tertiary FAP center (233 patients, 862 EGDs, 10 years) treated 208 duodenal lesions with low-grade dysplasia in 72.4%, high-grade dysplasia in 25.9%, adenocarcinoma in 1.7%; cold snare polypectomy was most common (41.9%). Among 47 ampullary lesions, 78.7% managed with surveillance, 21.3% with papillectomy.
ContextThis observational series from a single tertiary center demonstrates safety and feasibility of endoscopic surveillance and treatment for FAP duodenal and ampullary lesions; provides supportive evidence for current surveillance strategies but does not establish comparative benefit against alternative surveillance structures.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Kastrinos F, Lynch PM, Rubenstein JH). ACG Clinical Guideline: Genetic Testing and Management of Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol, 2015 (Recommendations 10 and 11).

Decision at stakeWhether to actively treat duodenal lesions detected during EGD surveillance in FAP versus observation only

MUTYH-ASSOCIATED POLYPOSIS (biallelic MUTYH), colonoscopy every 1-2 years beginning at age 25-30; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound (as for classic FAP).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

All patients meeting clinical criteria for, or carrying a pathogenic germline variant of, a hereditary GI cancer syndrome should have pre- and post-test genetic counseling, and at-risk first-degree relatives should be offered genetic testing. Syndrome-specific surveillance: LYNCH SYNDROME, colonoscopy at least every 2 years (annual colonoscopy should be considered in confirmed mutation carriers), beginning at age 20-25 years, or 2-5 years before the earliest CRC diagnosis in the family if that was before age 25; baseline EGD with gastric biopsy and test-and-treat for H. pylori at age 30-35, with ongoing upper-GI surveillance every 3-5 years where family history of gastric/duodenal cancer exists; annual endometrial biopsy and transvaginal ultrasound from age 30-35, with prophylactic hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy offered after childbearing; surveillance BEYOND population-based recommendations for the urinary tract, pancreas, breast and prostate is NOT recommended unless supported by family history. CLASSIC FAP, annual sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy beginning at puberty; colectomy indicated for documented/suspected cancer or significant symptoms (absolute), or for relative indications such as multiple adenomas >6 mm or a significant increase in adenoma number that make endoscopic control unfeasible; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound. AFAP, surveillance by colonoscopy (not sigmoidoscopy, as polyps are right-sided) with polypectomy every 1-2 years, beginning in the late teens to early 20s; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound (as for classic FAP). MUTYH-ASSOCIATED POLYPOSIS (biallelic MUTYH), colonoscopy every 1-2 years beginning at age 25-30; upper-GI surveillance by EGD/duodenoscopy from age 25-30, repeated every 0.5-4 years by Spigelman stage, plus annual thyroid ultrasound (as for classic FAP). SERRATED POLYPOSIS SYNDROME, colonoscopy every 1-3 years with attempted removal of all polyps >5 mm.

American College of Gastroenterology (Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Kastrinos F, Lynch PM, Rubenstein JH). ACG Clinical Guideline: Genetic Testing and Management of Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol, 2015 (Recommendations 10 and 11). · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Scardino A … Rausa E · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Sep 12, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

The PREFERENDO Delphi consensus: Minimum quality standards and core reporting elements for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Guideline / reviewguidelinepediatricendoscopy qualityhealth services
Clinical takeawayAdopt PREFERENDO's 27 consensus reporting standards for pediatric colonoscopy. Standardize your colonoscopy reports to include: defined report structure, physiological and pathological descriptors using endorsed terminology, bowel preparation quality assessment, terminal ileum intubation documentation, endorsed endoscopic scoring systems, and standardized lesion and polypectomy characterization. Specific criteria for each element are detailed in the source paper.
What it found27 of 31 Delphi consensus statements were approved; the manuscript specifically presents results for pediatric colonoscopy reporting standards, covering report structure, physiological and pathological descriptors, bowel preparation, terminal ileum intubation, endoscopic scoring systems, and polypectomy characterization.
ContextPrior pediatric endoscopy documentation was heterogeneous with no agreed international standard. PREFERENDO provides the first major consensus framework for standardized pediatric GI endoscopy reporting, enabling consistent documentation across centers and supporting quality harmonization.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Chiaro A … SIGENP Endoscopy Working Group · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=205 · Sep 10, 2026 · Pancreas · IF 1.9

Safety and Diagnostic Performance of Pancreatic Duct Brushings for Detecting Pancreatic Cancer.

New evidencepancreatic cancerERCPbiomarkerEUS
Clinical takeawayIn selected patients where clinical and imaging features suggest pancreatic cancer, PD brushing with combined BC and FISH can assist diagnosis, but 54.3% sensitivity cannot exclude malignancy if negative (confirmatory EUS-guided biopsy or surgery remains necessary). The 7.8% post-ERCP pancreatitis rate, notably higher than baseline diagnostic ERCP, warrants careful patient selection and informed consent.
What it foundCombined pancreatic duct brushing and FISH achieved 54.3% sensitivity and 87.7% specificity for detecting pancreatic cancer (AUC 0.71); post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 7.8% of 205 subjects.
ContextPD brushing with FISH is an existing technique that has been underutilized due to sparse systematic data on diagnostic accuracy. This retrospective analysis provides the first formal evaluation showing that combined brush cytology plus FISH yields modest diagnostic performance, insufficient as a standalone diagnostic modality but useful as an adjunctive tool.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), 'American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention strategies: summary and recommendations' (Buxbaum JL et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2023;97(2):153-162). DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2022.10.005, PMID 36517310.

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

For ALL patients undergoing ERCP (average-risk and high-risk alike), give periprocedural rectal NSAID prophylaxis (100 mg indomethacin or diclofenac) unless contraindicated (e.g., recent PUD, renal insufficiency), this is now a strong recommendation for unselected patients, not just high-risk ones. For high-risk patients undergoing repeated or deep pancreatic-duct access or ampullectomy, add a prophylactic small-caliber pancreatic duct stent (3-5Fr, preferably 5Fr, 3-7cm, removed within 5-10 days), strong recommendation; for other high-risk scenarios (difficult cannulation, prior PEP, precut sphincterotomy without fistulotomy), PD stenting is a conditional recommendation when PD access is easily achieved. Aggressive periprocedural/postprocedural IV hydration with lactated Ringer's (20 mL/kg bolus, then 3 mL/kg/h for 8h) is a conditional suggestion for unselected patients (most practical for inpatients), and wire-guided cannulation is conditionally favored over contrast-guided to reduce PEP risk. The SVI trial (Elmunzer, Lancet 2024) found rectal indomethacin alone did NOT meet non-inferiority versus indomethacin+stent in high-risk patients (PEP 14.9% vs 11.3%), supporting continued use of the combination bundle in high-risk cases rather than dropping the stent. Post-procedure, monitor for the major complications (pancreatitis, sphincterotomy bleeding, perforation, cholangitis) and manage by type, PEP by Cotton criteria with fluids/analgesia, bleeding with repeat endoscopic hemostasis, perforation by Stapfer classification with surgical consult for Type I, and cholangitis with empiric antibiotics (Tokyo Guidelines TG18) plus biliary drainage; these complication-management elements are unchanged from ESGE 2020.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), 'American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention strategies: summary and recommendations' (Buxbaum JL et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2023;97(2):153-162). DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2022.10.005, PMID 36517310. · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Mitsuhashi S … Vargas EJ · Pancreas · IF 1.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=21 · Sep 9, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Prospective evaluation of tension-reducing closure with intentional muscle-layer grasping for large colorectal post-ESD defects using an anchor-pronged clip (MANTIS study).

New therapyESDhemostasis
Clinical takeawayNo established clinical advantage demonstrated. MANTIS Clip achieves high initial closure (95.2%), but efficacy is size-dependent: 100% successful closure for specimens ≤59 mm but only 75% for specimens ≥60 mm. Study protocol targeted 30-50 mm lesions but included larger specimens with lower success. Sustained closure was only 76.2% at 3-5 days with 95.2% clip dislodgement by 2 weeks. Low adverse-event rates (0% delayed bleeding/perforation) are encouraging in this small series but lack a control group. Cannot determine whether clip placement prevents complications compared to standard practice or defects left open. Adoption should await comparative trial data stratified by defect size.
What it foundComplete closure achieved in 95.2% (20/21) of defects with MANTIS Clip, but sustained closure in only 76.2% (16/21) at 3-5 days with 95.2% clip dislodgement by ≥2 weeks; delayed bleeding and perforation rates were 0%, post-ESD coagulation syndrome occurred in 14.3%.
ContextRecent Tier 2 literature reports a prospective single-center evaluation of an anchor-pronged clip device (MANTIS Clip) for complete closure of large colorectal post-ESD defects, demonstrating feasibility and potential to address delayed adverse events from inadequate defect healing.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· Society of Critical Care Medicine / European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2026", 2026

Decision at stakeHow to achieve durable closure of large mucosal defects after colorectal ESD to prevent delayed complications

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Triage suspected perforation with immediate IV access (2 large-bore IVs) and assessment of perfusion in parallel with diagnostics; obtain upright CXR and CT abdomen/pelvis (most sensitive/specific) plus labs and lactate, and start empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics. Fluid therapy is stratified by perfusion status, not given as a fixed protocol for all comers: in adults with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or septic shock, give at least 30 mL/kg IV crystalloid within the first 3 hours (Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2026; conditional recommendation, low-certainty evidence), selecting the initial volume by individual patient characteristics and context (use adjusted or ideal body weight if BMI >30 kg/m²) with frequent, ongoing reassessment to avoid under- or over-resuscitation, alongside sepsis care: blood cultures as soon as possible and ideally before antimicrobials, lactate with serial measurement to guide resuscitation, and vasopressors if hypotension persists despite fluids. In patients without sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or shock, do not give protocolized volume resuscitation; use maintenance fluids or small individualized boluses guided by hemodynamic reassessment, and in fluid-sensitive patients (e.g., heart failure, end-stage renal disease) use smaller individualized boluses with close reassessment rather than a fixed weight-based volume. Obtain mandatory emergency surgical consultation for any confirmed perforation, hard peritoneal signs, free air, or hemodynamic instability, proceeding to exploratory laparotomy/laparoscopy or cause-specific surgery (Graham patch, Hartmann, colectomy). Selected contained post-procedural perforations that are small, clip-amenable, and hemodynamically stable may be managed conservatively with ICU monitoring, NPO, antibiotics, and serial imaging.

Society of Critical Care Medicine / European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2026", 2026 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Ashizawa H … Ono H · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=224 · Sep 7, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

Association of Mean Nocturnal Baseline Impedance and AFS EGJ Grading With AET-Defined Reflux Burden in Korean Patients.

DiagnosticGERDbiomarker
Clinical takeawayIn patients with borderline acid exposure (AET 4-6%), lower MNBI (< 1618 Ω) supports diagnosis of pathological GERD and consideration of treatment; this threshold may help navigate the diagnostic gap between Lyon Consensus 2.0 (AET ≥ 6%) and East Asian standards (AET ≥ 4%). However, these cutoffs are internally derived and require external validation before routine adoption in other populations.
What it foundLower mean nocturnal baseline impedance independently predicted pathological AET ≥ 6% (OR 0.84 per 100-unit increase, p < 0.001), with an exploratory cutoff of 1618 Ω achieving AUC 0.883.
ContextMNBI is already used to characterize reflux burden, but the diagnostic gray zone between international and regional AET thresholds has created clinical uncertainty in borderline cases. This study provides a physiological marker to resolve that ambiguity in a Korean cohort, though the cutoff remains unvalidated externally.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, Greer KB, Yadlapati R, Spechler SJ), Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(1):27-56

Decision at stakehow to characterize GERD in patients with borderline acid exposure time in the 4-6% AET gray zone

Where GERD is suspected but unclear and endoscopy shows no objective evidence, perform reflux monitoring OFF therapy to establish the diagnosis (strong, low); conversely, do NOT perform off-therapy reflux monitoring solely as a diagnostic test in patients already known to have LA grade C or D esophagitis or long-segment Barrett's, because the diagnosis is already established (strong, low).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

In patients with classic GERD symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation) and no alarm symptoms, give an 8-week trial of empiric PPI ONCE DAILY before a meal (strong, moderate evidence); administer PPI 30-60 minutes before a meal rather than at bedtime (strong, moderate). Endoscopy is the FIRST test in patients presenting with dysphagia or other alarm symptoms, the guideline names weight loss and GI bleeding, and also in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (strong, low). If classic symptoms respond to the 8-week trial, attempt to discontinue the PPI (conditional, low); for patients without erosive esophagitis or Barrett's whose symptoms resolved, an attempt at discontinuation should be made; patients requiring maintenance should take the lowest effective dose. If symptoms do not respond adequately to the 8-week trial, or return on discontinuation, perform diagnostic endoscopy, ideally after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks (strong, low). Where GERD is suspected but unclear and endoscopy shows no objective evidence, perform reflux monitoring OFF therapy to establish the diagnosis (strong, low); conversely, do NOT perform off-therapy reflux monitoring solely as a diagnostic test in patients already known to have LA grade C or D esophagitis or long-segment Barrett's, because the diagnosis is already established (strong, low). In refractory GERD, optimize PPI therapy first (strong, moderate); then pH monitoring OFF PPIs if GERD was not previously established by pH study, long-segment Barrett's, or LA grade C/D esophagitis, versus impedance-pH ON PPIs where GERD is already established but symptoms persist on twice-daily PPI (both conditional, low). Before antireflux surgery or endoscopic therapy, HRM is recommended to rule out achalasia and absent contractility, with provocative testing (e.g., multiple rapid swallows) to identify contractile reserve in ineffective esophageal motility; on-therapy reflux monitoring is suggested before intervention in patients with prior objective GERD findings who remain symptomatic. Antireflux surgery by an experienced surgeon is an option for patients with OBJECTIVE evidence of GERD, with severe esophagitis (LA C/D), large hiatal hernia, or persistent troublesome symptoms benefiting most; TIF is suggested only for troublesome regurgitation or heartburn in patients who do not wish to undergo antireflux surgery and who are WITHOUT severe esophagitis (LA C/D) or hiatal hernia >2 cm. For extraesophageal symptoms WITHOUT typical GERD symptoms, perform reflux testing BEFORE starting PPI therapy (strong, moderate); with concomitant typical symptoms, consider twice-daily PPI for 8-12 weeks before further testing (conditional, low). Lifestyle: weight loss in overweight/obese patients (strong, moderate); avoid meals within 2-3 hours of bedtime, avoid tobacco, avoid trigger foods, and elevate the head of the bed for nighttime symptoms (all conditional, low).

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, Greer KB, Yadlapati R, Spechler SJ), Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(1):27-56 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Chae YR … Lee YC · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=4,633 · Sep 11, 2026 · J Gastroenterology · IF 5.7

The evolving landscape of chronic pancreatitis in Japan: findings from a nationwide epidemiological survey in 2021.

Epidemiologychronic pancreatitisepidemiologyERCP
Clinical takeawayEpidemiological surveillance data; no new treatment recommendations. Clinical relevance: alcohol-related CP accounts for 39.5% of female cases in Japan, a substantial proportion warranting attention to alcohol history when women present with CP. Maintain standard management: monitor for diabetes (45.8%), pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (36.6%), and malignancy (18%) per established guidelines.
What it foundCP prevalence in Japan increased 30% to 58.6 per 100,000 population (2016-2021), with 17,490 new cases annually (incidence 13.9 per 100,000). Alcohol was the etiology in 69.6% of cases overall and 39.5% of female cases.
ContextJapan-specific epidemiological survey updating 2016 nationwide data. The 30% prevalence increase and the substantial proportion of alcohol-related CP among women (39.5%) reflect the current disease burden in Japan. Reinforces need for comprehensive long-term management of CP complications and attention to alcohol-related cases in both sexes.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Chronic Pancreatitis' (Gardner TB et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115(3):322-339). DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000535, PMID 32022720.

Decision at stakescreen for and manage diabetes, exocrine insufficiency, and malignancy in chronic pancreatitis

Fecal elastase does NOT confirm chronic pancreatitis: it is a test of exocrine FUNCTION and is the appropriate initial test for the exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) that chronic pancreatitis causes, a consequence of the disease, not the diagnosis of it.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Confirm chronic pancreatitis on CROSS-SECTIONAL IMAGING, CT for late calcific disease, MRI/MRCP (with secretin where available) for earlier ductal and parenchymal change, EUS an acceptable alternative; per ACG 2020, "Diagnosis is made usually on cross-sectional imaging, with modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography and pancreatic function tests playing a secondary role". Fecal elastase does NOT confirm chronic pancreatitis: it is a test of exocrine FUNCTION and is the appropriate initial test for the exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) that chronic pancreatitis causes, a consequence of the disease, not the diagnosis of it. A normal fecal elastase does not exclude chronic pancreatitis and a low one does not establish it. Per AGA 2023, fecal elastase must be run on a semi-solid or solid stool specimen; below 100 mcg/g is good evidence of EPI and 100-200 mcg/g is indeterminate (below 200 mcg/g is the cutoff commonly used to screen). Then manage with smoking and alcohol cessation, PERT for exocrine insufficiency titrated to symptoms, fat-soluble vitamin and bone surveillance, and individualized type 3c diabetes control, considering insulin early in patients with marked hyperglycemia or symptoms of insulin deficiency. Treat pain with a stepwise ladder from scheduled acetaminophen and neuromodulators to EUS-guided celiac plexus block and endoscopic/surgical intervention, referring early for surgery per ESCAPE 2020 in candidates with main pancreatic duct obstruction. Screen for PDAC per lifetime risk and pursue etiologic workup via TIGAR-O v2, including genetic testing and autoimmune pancreatitis evaluation.

American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Chronic Pancreatitis' (Gardner TB et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115(3):322-339). DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000535, PMID 32022720. · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Masamune A … Japan Pancreatitis Study Group · Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 5.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №11 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Endoscopy by RSS