II Brazilian consensus statement on endoscopic ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: At the time of its introduction in the early 80s, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) was indicated for diagnostic purposes. Recently, EUS has been employed to assist or to be the main platform of complex therapeutic interventions. METHODS: From a series of relevant new topics in the literature and based on the need to complement the I Brazilian consensus on EUS, twenty experienced endosonographers identified and reviewed the pertinent literature in databases. The quality of evidence, strength of recommendations, and level of consensus were graded and voted on. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for eight relevant topics: treatment of gastric varices, staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer, biliary drainage, tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions (SELs), treatment of pancreatic fluid collections, tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions, celiac neurolysis, and evaluation of the incidental pancreatic cysts. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high level of evidence for staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer; biopsy of SELs as the safest method; unilateral and bilateral injection techniques are equivalent for EUS-guided celiac neurolysis, and in patients with visible ganglia, celiac ganglia neurolysis appears to lead to better results. There is a moderate level of evidence for: yield of tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions is not influenced by the needle shape, gauge, or employed aspiration technique; EUS-guided and percutaneous biliary drainage present similar clinical success and adverse event rates; plastic and metallic stents are equivalent in the EUS-guided treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst. There is a low level of evidence in the routine use of EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices.

I Consenso Brasileiro de Ecoendoscopia / I Brazilian Consensus of Endoscopic Ultrasonography

RACIONAL: Ainda que se reconheça a eficiência da ecoendoscopia para o diagnóstico e até mesmo para o tratamento de várias doenças do aparelho digestivo, a sua inclusão nos algoritmos de decisão clínica em gastroenterologia tem sofrido restrições. Este fato é comprovado indiretamente através da existência de vários estudos que se preocuparam em demonstrar o impacto do exame ecoendoscópio na mudança de condutas e na redução de custos. Outra evidência, esta direta e identificável em nosso meio, é a disponibilidade bastante limitada da ecoendoscopia no Brasil. Neste sentido, quiseram-se identificar as situações clínicas em que o exame ecoendoscópico é eficiente, através de revisões sistemáticas, graduando-se o grau da evidência e a força da recomendação, realizadas pelo grupo envolvido com o método em nosso país, apresentadas e votadas na forma de consenso. MÉTODO: O grupo de médicos que realiza ecoendoscopia foi formado a partir de informações obtidas junto às sociedades de especialidades e aos fabricantes de equipamentos. A lista de tópicos e perguntas relevantes foi formulada por dois membros do consenso (FMF, CMD), discutida com e distribuída aos consensualistas 5 meses antes da reunião de consenso. Foi solicitado que se realizassem, na medida do possível, revisões sistemáticas e que as respostas fossem apresentadas para a votação com o grau de evidência e a força da recomendação. Nos 2 dias da reunião de consenso, as respostas foram apresentadas, debatidas e votadas. Quando, no mínimo, 70 por cento dos votantes concordaram com o texto da resposta, houve consenso. O relatório final foi submetido a apreciação e aprovado por todos os consensualistas. RESULTADOS: Setenta e nove questões foram debatidas na pré-reunião do consenso, resultando 85 questões que foram então distribuídas. Nos 2 dias da reunião do consenso, 22 participantes debateram e votaram as 85 respostas. O impacto causado pelo exame ecoendoscópico foi comprovado por evidências...

BACKGROUND: In the last 20 years, several papers have focused on demonstrating the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography findings on the management of different clinical scenarios in digestive disease. This fact is an indirect evidence of the difficulty of popularization of the method. On other hand, the limited availability of endoscopic ultrasonography in Brazil is a direct evidence of this limitation. This was the rationale for the organization of a consensus meeting on endoscopic ultrasonography. It was aimed to identify the best evidence that support the use of endoscopic ultrasonography in gastroenterology. METHODS: A panel of experts on endoscopic ultrasonography was selected based on the files of the Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Societies and on the registries of endoscope manufacturers. Two members of the meeting selected the relevant topics that were transformed into questions. The topics and the questions were debated among the experts five months before the consensus meeting. The experts were asked to perform systematic reviews in order to answer the questions so it could be possible to grade the answers based on the strength of the evidence. During the two days of the meeting the answers were presented, debated and voted. Consensus was reached when a minimum of 70 percent of the voters were in agreement. The final consensus report was submitted to the experts' evaluation and approval. RESULTS: Seventy nine questions were debated by the experts at the pre-Consensus meeting. As the result of this debate 85 questions came out and were assigned to the members of the panel. During the Consensus meeting 22 experts debated and voted 85 answers. Consensus was reached for several clinical scenarios for which the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography findings were supported by level 1 evidences: differential diagnosis of subepithelial lesions and thickening of gastric folds, staging and diagnosis of unresectable esophageal cancer...

[I Brazilian consensus of endoscopic ultrasonography]. / I Consenso Brasileiro de Ecoendoscopia.

BACKGROUND: In the last 20 years, several papers have focused on demonstrating the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography findings on the management of different clinical scenarios in digestive disease. This fact is an indirect evidence of the difficulty of popularization of the method. On other hand, the limited availability of endoscopic ultrasonography in Brazil is a direct evidence of this limitation. This was the rationale for the organization of a consensus meeting on endoscopic ultrasonography. It was aimed to identify the best evidence that support the use of endoscopic ultrasonography in gastroenterology. METHODS: A panel of experts on endoscopic ultrasonography was selected based on the files of the Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Societies and on the registries of endoscope manufacturers. Two members of the meeting selected the relevant topics that were transformed into questions. The topics and the questions were debated among the experts five months before the consensus meeting. The experts were asked to perform systematic reviews in order to answer the questions so it could be possible to grade the answers based on the strength of the evidence. During the two days of the meeting the answers were presented, debated and voted. Consensus was reached when a minimum of 70% of the voters were in agreement. The final consensus report was submitted to the experts' evaluation and approval. RESULTS: Seventy nine questions were debated by the experts at the pre-Consensus meeting. As the result of this debate 85 questions came out and were assigned to the members of the panel. During the Consensus meeting 22 experts debated and voted 85 answers. Consensus was reached for several clinical scenarios for which the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography findings were supported by level 1 evidences: differential diagnosis of subepithelial lesions and thickening of gastric folds, staging and diagnosis of unresectable esophageal cancer, indirect signs of peritoneal involvement of gastric cancer, MALT gastric lymphoma and rectal cancer staging, diagnosis of common bile duct and gallbladder stones, diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and differential diagnosis of a solid mass in chronic pancreatitis, differential diagnosis of the pancreatic cyst, prediction of the results of the endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices and diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There are the highest levels of evidences that support the indication of endoscopic ultrasonography for several digestive diseases and even for non-small cell lung cancer.

Gastrogastric fistula: a possible complication of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Gastrogastric fistula is a communication between the proximal gastric pouch and the distal gastric remnant, rarely described in the realm of bariatric procedures. The aim of this study was to review the existing literature about this topic and to demonstrate its laparoscopic treatment. METHODS: An extensive literature review found several articles reporting this complication. However, no citation was found describing the steps of the laparoscopic management of this situation. RESULTS: Gastrogastric fistula occurs in up to 6% of Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses. Two theories exist for fistula formation: (1) it is a technical complication derived from the incomplete division of the stomach during the creation of the pouch, and (2) it occurs after a staple-line failure, developing a leak with an abscess, which then drains into the distal stomach forming the fistula. Early symptoms include fever, tachycardia, and abdominal pain. Failure in weight loss is a late clinical sign observed in these patients. Diagnosis is based on radiologic study, upper endoscopy and computed tomography. When identified in the acute postoperative course, laparoscopic treatment is easy. Chronic fistulas are difficult to manage, and the laparoscopic approach is an alternative to open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Gastrogastric fistula is a possible complication of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and its laparoscopic treatment is feasible.