Anastomotic defects are deleterious complications after either oncologic or bariatric surgery, leading to high morbidity and mortality. Besides surgical revision in early stages or instable patients, endoscopic treatment has become the mainstay. To date, many options for endoscopic treatment in this setting exist, including fully covered metal stent placement, endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT), endoscopic internal drainage with pigtail placement (EID), leak closure with through the scope or over the scope clips, endoluminal suturing, fibrin glue sealing and a combination of all these techniques. Current evidence is mostly based on retrospective single and multicenter studies. No guidelines exist in this important field. Treatment options have to be chosen upon each case individually, taking into account clinical and anatomic criteria, such as timing, size, infectious wound complications and hemodynamic stability. Local expertise and availability of treatment devices need to be taken into account whenever choosing a treatment strategy. This review aimed to present current treatment options in terms of effectiveness, advantages and disadvantages in order to guide the clinician for his decision making. Additionally, we aimed to provide a treatment algorithm.

Background and Objectives: Bleeding is one of the most feared and frequent adverse events in the case of EUS-guided drainage of WOPN using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) and of direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN). When it occurs, its management is still controversial. In the last few years, PuraStat, a novel hemostatic peptide gel has been introduced, expanding the toolbox of the endoscopic hemostatic agents. The aim of this case series was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PuraStat in preventing and controlling bleeding of WOPN drainage using LAMSs. Materials and Methods: This is a multicenter, retrospective pilot study from three high-volume centers in Italy, including all consecutive patients treated with the novel hemostatic peptide gel after LAMSs placement for the drainage of symptomatic WOPN between 2019 and 2022. Results: A total of 10 patients were included. All patients underwent at least one session of DEN. Technical success of PuraStat was achieved in 100% of patients. In seven cases PuraStat was placed for post-DEN bleeding prevention, with one patient experiencing bleeding after DEN. In three cases, on the other hand, PuraStat was placed to manage active bleeding: two cases of oozing were successfully controlled with gel application, and a massive spurting from a retroperitoneal vessel required subsequent angiography. No re-bleeding occurred. No PuraStat-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions: This novel peptide gel could represent a promising hemostatic device, both in preventing and managing active bleeding after EUS-guided drainage of WON. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm its efficacy.

Postoperative non variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage may occur early or late and affect a variable percentage of patients—up to about 2%. Most cases of intraluminal bleeding are an indication for urgent Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and require endoscopic haemostatic treatment. In addition to the approach usually adopted in non-variceal upper haemorrhages, these cases may be burdened with difficulties in terms of anastomotic tissue, angled positions, and the risk of further complications. There is also extreme variability related to the type of surgery performed, in the context of oncological disease or bariatric surgery. At the same time, the world of haemostatic devices available in digestive endoscopy is increasing, meeting high efficacy rates and attempting to treat even the most complex cases. Our narrative review summarises the current evidence in terms of different approaches to endoscopic haemostasis in upper bleeding in altered anatomy after surgery, proposing an up-to-date guidance for endoscopic clinicians and at the same time, highlighting areas of future scientific research.

Over the last few years, capsule endoscopy has been established as a fundamental device in the practicing gastroenterologist’s toolbox. Its utilization in diagnostic algorithms for suspected small bowel bleeding, Crohn’s disease, and small bowel tumors has been approved by several guidelines. The advent of double-balloon enteroscopy has significantly increased the therapeutic possibilities and release of multiple devices (single-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy) aimed at improving the performance of small bowel enteroscopy. Recently, some important innovations have appeared in the small bowel endoscopy scene, providing further improvement to its evolution. Artificial intelligence in capsule endoscopy should increase diagnostic accuracy and reading efficiency, and the introduction of motorized spiral enteroscopy into clinical practice could also improve the therapeutic yield. This review focuses on the most recent studies on artificial-intelligence-assisted capsule endoscopy and motorized spiral enteroscopy.

Introduction: Large rectal lesions can conceal submucosal invasion and cancer nodules. Despite the increasing diffusion of high-definition endoscopes and the importance of an accurate morphological evaluation, a complete assessment in this setting can be challenging. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) plays an established role in the locoregional staging of rectal cancer, although this technique has a tendency toward the over-estimation of the loco-regional (T) staging. However, there are still few data on contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS), especially if this ancillary technique may increase the accuracy for predicting invasive nodules among large rectal lesions. Material and Methods: Consecutive large (≥20 mm) superficial rectal lesions with high-definition endoscopy, characterized by focal areas suggestive for invasive cancer/2B type according to JNET classification, were considered for additional standardized evaluation via CH-EUS with Sonovue ©. Results: From 2020 to 2023, we evaluated 12 consecutive superficial rectal lesions with sizes ranging from 20 to 180 mm. This evaluation provided additional elements to support the therapeutic decision made. Lesions were treated with surgical (3/12) or endoscopic treatment (9/12) according to their morphology and CH-EUS evaluation. Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound can provide an additional evaluation for large and difficult-to-classify rectal lesions. In our experience, CH-EUS staging corresponded to the final pathological stages in 9/12 (75%) lesions, improving the distinction between T1 and T2 lesions. Larger prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to support and standardize this approach.