Main Recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.2 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.3 ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.4 ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20–30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.5 ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.6 ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.7 ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.8 ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Main recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection as progression to invasive carcinoma is highly likely.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends performance of a colonoscopy, if that has not yet been done, in cases of duodenal adenoma.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends the use of the cap-assisted method when the location of the minor and/or major papilla and their relationship to a duodenal adenoma is not clearly established during forward-viewing endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends the routine use of a side-viewing endoscope when a laterally spreading adenoma with extension to the minor and/or major papilla is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests cold snare polypectomy for small (< 6 mm in size) nonmalignant duodenal adenomas.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the first-line endoscopic resection technique for nonmalignant large nonampullary duodenal adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends that endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for duodenal adenomas is an effective resection technique only in expert hands.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends using techniques that minimize adverse events such as immediate or delayed bleeding or perforation. These may include piecemeal resection, defect closure techniques, noncontact hemostasis, and other emerging techniques, and these should be considered on a case-by-case basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends endoscopic surveillance 3 months after the index treatment. In cases of no recurrence, a further follow-up endoscopy should be done 1 year later. Thereafter, surveillance intervals should be adapted to the lesion site, en bloc resection status, and initial histological result. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Main recommendations: ESGE recommends the “pull” technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the direct percutaneous introducer (“push”) technique for PEG placement in cases where the “pull” method is contraindicated, for example in severe esophageal stenosis or in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or esophageal cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the intravenous administration of a prophylactic single dose of a beta-lactam antibiotic (or appropriate alternative antibiotic, in the case of allergy) to decrease the risk of post-procedural wound infection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends that inadvertent insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) into the respiratory tract should be considered a serious but avoidable adverse event (AE).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that each institution should have a dedicated protocol to confirm correct positioning of NGTs placed “blindly” at the patient’s bedside; this should include: radiography, pH testing of the aspirate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring, but not auscultation alone.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends confirmation of correct NGT placement by radiography in high-risk patients (intensive care unit [ICU] patients or those with altered consciousness or absent gag/cough reflex).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that EN may be started within 3 – 4 hours after uncomplicated placement of a PEG or PEG-J.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends that daily tube mobilization (pushing inward) along with a loose position of the external PEG bumper (1 – 2 cm from the abdominal wall) could mitigate the risk of development of buried bumper syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Main recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends the combination of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based tissue acquisition as the preferred diagnostic approach for tissue acquisition in patients with jaundice and distal extrahepatic biliary stricture in the absence of a pancreatic mass. 2 ESGE suggests that brushing cytology should be completed along with fluoroscopy-guided biopsies, wherever technically feasible, in patients with perihilar biliary strictures. 3 ESGE suggests EUS-TA for perihilar strictures when ERCP-based modalities yield insufficient results, provided that curative resection is not feasible and/or when cross-sectional imaging has shown accessible extraluminal disease. 4 ESGE suggests using standard ERCP diagnostic modalities at index ERCP. In the case of indeterminate biliary strictures, ESGE suggests cholangioscopy-guided biopsies, in addition to standard ERCP diagnostic modalities. Additional intraductal biliary imaging modalities can be selectively used, based on clinical context, local expertise, and resource availability.

Background and Aim: The main treatment aim in chronic pancreatitis (CP) is symptom control and especially pain relief. Management of stone‐predominant CP is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has emerged as the cornerstone of non‐surgical treatment as a result of disappointing results of available endoscopic treatment options during the last decades. With new developments in the field of direct peroral pancreatoscopy (POP) and intracorporeal lithotripsy, direct intraluminal treatment of main pancreatic duct (MPD) stones returns to the spotlight.Methods: Herein, we reviewed the current data on direct pancreatoscopic treatment of MPD stones with a focus on efficiency and safety of available technologies, endoscopes and lithotripsy devices. A systematic Medline search for relevant studies was done.Results: Ten relevant publications meeting the inclusion criteria were identified (two prospective series, six retrospective trials, two case reports, n = 87 patients). Successful ductal clearance for POP‐guided treatment was reported as between 43% and 100% compared to ESWL with 59% to 80%. Adverse event rate for POP‐guided therapy was reported as 0–13.5%. One study showed a noticeable higher adverse event rate of 43%. In this trial, POP was carried out after ESWL. There is no reported mortality following POP treatment.Conclusion: Available results are promising in terms of ductal clearance and pain relief compared to standard endoscopic techniques and ESWL as the current gold standard for lithotripsy. Interpretation of this data is limited by the small number of cases for POP and the lack of prospective randomized controlled trials.