Pancreatic cancer is a highly lethal disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In the United States (US), the overall 5-year relative survival rate for pancreatic cancer during the 2012–2018 period was 11.5%. However, the cancer stage at diagnosis strongly influences relative survival in these patients. Per the National Cancer Institute (NCI) statistics for 2012–2018, the 5-year relative survival rate for patients with localized disease was 43.9%, while it was 3.1% for patients with distant metastasis. The poor survival rates are primarily due to the late development of clinical signs and symptoms. Hence, early diagnosis is critical in improving treatment outcomes. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has gained immense popularity in gastroenterology. AI-assisted endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) models have been touted as a breakthrough in the early detection of pancreatic cancer. These models may also accurately differentiate pancreatic cancer from chronic pancreatitis and autoimmune pancreatitis, which mimics pancreatic cancer on radiological imaging. In this review, we detail the application of AI-assisted EUS models for pancreatic cancer detection. We also highlight the utility of AI-assisted EUS models in differentiating pancreatic cancer from radiological mimickers. Furthermore, we discuss the current limitations and future applications of AI technology in EUS for pancreatic cancers.

Background and Objective: Colonoscopy is an ever-growing procedure, being the primary diagnostic and therapeutic modality to manage lower gastrointestinal pathologies. It has a decades-old history with significant successive endoscopic innovations that eventually led to the development of the current colonoscope, as we know it today. Methods: We reviewed multiple databases in non-systemic fashion using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library to shed light on historic timeline of advancements and groundbreaking landmark achievements currently underway. Key Content and Findings: Initially starting off as a rudimentary rigid, device that utilized candles as a light source, the primitive colonoscope was adapted to a semi-rigid framework to allow better maneuverability. Improved lenses allowed better viewing quality and the development of video capabilities with the capability of performing both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions transformed the colonoscope completely into a modern interventional device. Its utility started gaining attention in the late 90s when multiple guidelines were published, supporting its impact on survival for colorectal screening. Over the years, the therapeutic component of colonoscopy has evolved further allowing it to be used as a treatment modality for several lower gastrointestinal pathologies including control of lower gastrointestinal bleeds, management of large bowel perforation, foreign body removal and dilatation of colonic stenosis. With improving technological advances, success rates of colonoscopic interventions continue to rise and new therapeutic modalities underway further enhancing their role. Multiple developments are underway including use of artificial intelligence (AI) with as endocuff vision, amplify EYE and G-EYE among others that hold great promise for the future of colonoscopy. Conclusions: With our review, we hope to further the understanding clinicians about the colonoscope and help contribute towards its further developments.

Introduction: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common condition that alters the quality of life of patients. A variety of dietary interventions have been introduced to address this debilitating condition. The low-FODMAP diet (LFD), gluten-free diet (GFD), and Mediterranean diet are examples showing efficacy. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare these interventions to find the best approach. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the available literature through 14 March 2024 in the following databases: Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE OVID, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane Central. We only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We used a random effects model and conducted a direct meta-analysis based on the DerSimonian–Laird approach and a network meta-analysis based on the frequentist approach. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The primary outcomes included IBS quality of life (IBS QOL) and IBS symptom severity scale (IBS-SSS). Results: We finalized 23 studies including 1689 IBS patients. In the direct meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in any IBS score between GFD and either LFD or standard diet. Meanwhile, the LFD was statistically superior to the standard diet in the IBS-SSS (MD: −46.29, CI: −63.72–−28.86, p < 0.01) and IBS QOL (MD: 4.06, CI: 0.72–7.41, p = 0.02). On ranking, the Mediterranean diet showed the greatest improvement in IBS-SSS, IBS-QOL, distension, dissatisfaction, and general life interference, followed by the LFD alone or in combination with the GFD. Conclusions: We demonstrated the efficacy of dietary interventions such as the LFD and Mediterranean diet in improving IBS. There is a need for large RCTs with head-to-head comparisons, particularly for the Mediterranean diet.

Globally, acute appendicitis has an estimated lifetime risk of 7–8%. However, there are numerous controversies surrounding the management of acute appendicitis, and the best treatment approach depends on patient characteristics. Non-operative management (NOM), which involves the utilization of antibiotics and aggressive intravenous hydration, and surgical appendectomy are valid treatment options for healthy adults. NOM is also ideal for poor surgical candidates. Another important consideration is the timing of surgery, i.e., the role of interval appendectomy (IA) and the possibility of delaying surgery for a few hours on index admission. IA refers to surgical removal of the appendix 8–12 weeks after the initial diagnosis of appendicitis. It is ideal in patients with a contained appendiceal perforation on initial presentation, wherein an initial nonoperative approach is preferred. Furthermore, IA can help distinguish malignant and non-malignant causes of acute appendicitis, while reducing the risk of recurrence. On the contrary, a decision to delay appendectomy for a few hours on index admission should be made based on the patients’ baseline health status and severity of appendicitis. Post-operatively, surgical drain placement may help reduce postoperative complications; however, it carries an increased risk of drain occlusion, fistula formation, and paralytic ileus. Furthermore, one of the most critical aspects of appendectomy is the closure of the appendiceal stump, which can be achieved with the help of endoclips, sutures, staples, and endoloops. In this review, we discuss different aspects of management of acute appendicitis, current controversies in management, and the potential role of endoscopic appendectomy as a future treatment option.

The altered anatomy in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) makes conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) a technically challenging procedure. EUS–directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) and laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) are alternative modalities used with comparable efficacy and adverse events in such patients. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing EDGE and LA-ERCP to assess the efficacy and safety in patients with RYGB. We conducted a comprehensive literature search from inception to July 7, 2022, on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases using the core concepts of EDGE and LA-ERCP. We excluded case reports, case series (<10 patients), and review articles. Relative risk (RR) was calculated when comparing dichotomous variables, whereas mean difference was calculated for continuous outcomes. A 95% confidence interval (CI) and P values (<0.05 considered significant) were also generated. The search strategy yielded a total of 55 articles. We finalized 4 studies with total 192 patients (75 EDGE and 117 LA-ERCP). The rates of technical success were not significantly different for LA-ERCP and EDGE (RR, 0.994; 95% CI, 0.939–1.051; P = 0.830, I ² = 0%) Similarly, no difference in adverse events was noted between the 2 groups (RR, 1.216; 95% CI, 0.561–2.634; P = 0.620, I ² = 10.67%). Shorter procedure time was noted for EDGE compared with the LA-ERCP group (mean difference, 91.53 min; 95% CI, 69.911–113.157 min; P < 0.001, I ² = 8.32%). EDGE and LA-ERCP are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety. In addition, EDGE has overall lower procedural time. Our study suggests that EDGE should be considered as a first-line therapy if expertise available.

Introduction: Clostridium difficile Infection is a significant source of morbidity and mortality, which is on the rise. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) is an alternative therapy to antibiotics with a high success rate and low relapse rate. Current data regarding the efficacy of the types of FMT used, namely fresh, frozen, and lyophilized is conflicting. Our review attempts to consolidate this data and highlight the most efficacious treatment currently available. Methodology: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SciELO, the Korean Citation Index, and Global Index Medicus were systematically searched from inception through May 3, 2022. Studies in which patients are undergoing any form of FMT who had failed antibiotic treatment previously were included. Both pairwise (direct) and network (direct + indirect) meta-analysis were performed using a random effects model and DerSimonian-Laird approach. A frequentist approach was used for network meta-analysis. Risk differences with (RD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results: A total of 8 studies, including 4 RCTs and 4 cohort studies, were included with a total of 616 patients. Fresh FMT was determined to be most successful with 93% efficacy 95% CI (0.913 to 0.999) followed by frozen with 88% efficacy 95% CI (0.857 to 0.947) and lyophilized with 83% efficacy 95% CI (0.745 to 0.910). The direct meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between fresh and frozen group. (RD −0.051 95% CI −0.116 to 0.014 P=0.178). No significant differences were noted in frozen versus lyophilized groups with an overall trend towards Fresh FM (RD −0.061 95% CI −0.038 to 0.160 P=0.617). On network meta-analysis, when compared with fresh group, a lower recovery rate was noted with both frozen group (RD −0.06 95% CI −0.11 to 0.00 P=0.05) and lyophilized group (RD −0.16 95% CI −0.27 to −0.05 P=0.01). Conclusion: We conclude the efficacy of Frozen and Lyophilized preparations is high with no difference in direct comparison, and the relative efficacy reduction based on network analysis is outweighed by the safety, accessibility, and practicality of Frozen or Lyophilized preparations.