Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a critical complication occurring in patients with advanced malignancy. Current treatments are both surgical and non-surgical, the latter including medical, endoscopic, and percutaneous approaches. Surgery is still the treatment of choice for MBO. However, almost 50% of patients are unfit for surgery because of poor performance status. Given the high post-operative mortality rate and the frailty of MBO patients, the least invasive surgical intervention is recommended. Therefore, recent multidisciplinary recommendations have suggested considering less invasive interventions instead of palliative surgery. Medical therapy, aiming to alleviate symptoms, is usually only a part of the therapeutic strategy when managing patients with MBO. Percutaneous techniques, including both interventional radiology and endoscopic procedures, are safe and effective for symptom relief, but often do not allow oral diet resumption. Endoscopic techniques are achieving a more relevant role for MBO treatment, as supported by the widening of the indication to colonic intraluminal stenting in the latest update of the European guidelines. Current data support the use of colonic stenting as both a bridge to surgery and the definitive treatment of malignant colonic obstruction. The development of endoscopic ultrasound-guided anastomotic techniques may offer the possibility of widening its applications to endoscopic treatment of MBO, allowing stenosis to be overcome, and reestablishing the continuity of the gastrointestinal tract in small bowel obstructions as well. The introduction of new interventional endoscopic techniques and their progressive diffusion will add the possibility to adopt minimally invasive solutions to treat a critical condition such as MBO.

Obesity is a multifactorial disease linked to chronic inflammation, metabolic disorders, and gut microbiota dysbiosis. Bariatric surgery (BS) and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) are effective for sustained weight loss and comorbidity improvement but may cause gastrointestinal and nutritional complications. This narrative review, informed by a structured literature search, synthesizes evidence on gastrointestinal side effects, gut microbiota alterations, and nutritional management after BS and ESG. Literature searches in PubMed and Scopus, without time limits, included English full-text articles on postoperative symptoms, microbiota changes, and nutritional outcomes. Bariatric procedures (e.g., Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy) and ESG are associated with adverse events such as dumping syndrome, GERD, nausea, and micronutrient deficiencies. Surgery induces profound shifts in gut microbiota composition and diversity, contributing to improved metabolic regulation. ESG, though less invasive, produces comparable microbial changes with a favorable safety profile. Nutritional management—progressive diet protocols and supplementation—is critical for preventing deficiencies and sustaining outcomes. Mediterranean-style diets appear more sustainable than high-protein regimens. Study heterogeneity, small cohorts, and limited long-term ESG follow-up reduce generalizability. Multidisciplinary care integrating surgical or endoscopic approaches with personalized nutrition and microbiota modulation is essential to optimize outcomes in obesity management.

Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) is recognized as the first-line therapy for achalasia, considering its high clinical efficacy and safety. Among the most important adverse events, bleeding or hematoma in the submucosal tunnel has incidence of approximately 1%.We describe the case of woman affected by type II achalasia, treated with POEM, who presented delayed bleeding with submucosal hematoma after starting anticoagulant therapy with subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).She presented with moderate-to-severe chest pain, stable vital signs and no evidence of arterial active bleeding. Therefore, urgent esophagogastroduodenoscopy was not performed, and the patient was treated conservatively with fasting, antibiotics, LMWH discontinuation and close medical supervision. After 10 days the condition was resolved, and the patients safely discharged.The present case report adds support to the safety and efficacy of conservative management of submucosal hematomas occurring after POEM.

Background/Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) with Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent (LAMS) is an established option for high-surgical-risk patients, with high technical and clinical success. Indications include acute cholecystitis and palliation of jaundice in malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Both trans-gastric and trans-duodenal approaches are used, but the optimal route remains debated. The aim of the study was to compare trans-gastric and trans-duodenal access in terms of technical success, adverse events, readmissions, and reinterventions. Methods: We implemented a single-centre retrospective study of consecutive EUS-GBD procedures with LAMS at a tertiary endoscopy unit (January 2020–January 2026). Demographic, clinical, and procedural data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests. Results: Seventy patients were included (51.4% male; mean age 77 ± 12 years). Indications were acute cholecystitis (64.3%) and MDBO (35.7%). Trans-gastric access was used in 48.5% of cases. A Hot-Axios LAMS was deployed in 77.2% of cases, mostly >10 mm. Technical success was achieved in 98.5% of cases. Naso-cystic drainage (NCD) was used through the LAMS in 47.1% of patients, while a double pig-tail plastic stent was used in 7.2% of patients. Adverse events were rare (1.4% misdeployment). LAMS obstruction occurred in 10% of patients, with reintervention required in 12.8% of patients. No differences were found between access routes in indication, technical success, LAMS type/size, or adjunctive drainage. However, trans-gastric access was associated with a higher reintervention rate (p = 0.01). Conclusions: EUS-GBD is a safe and effective procedure. While both approaches are comparable in most outcomes, the trans-gastric route may carry a higher risk of reintervention and should be avoided when alternative access is feasible.