Protección radiológica en endoscopia

La endoscopía digestiva ha evolucionado de una técnica puramente diagnóstica a un procedimiento terapéutico. Esto es posible en muchos casos gracias al uso de fluoroscopía, lo cual conlleva la exposición a radiaciones ionizantes tanto de los pacientes como del personal actuante. La colangiopancreatografía retrógrada endoscópica (CPRE), que requiere necesariamente de fluoroscopia, es catalogada por la Food and Drug Administration como un examen con potencial riesgo de desencadenar lesiones inducidas por radiación. El presente artículo de revisión repasa los efectos biológicos de las radiaciones, los tipos de equipos radiológicos utilizados en CPRE, así como las magnitudes y unidades dosimétricas, para finalmente abordar los elementos de radio protección en la sala de endoscopia. El objetivo es brindar al lector la informacion para poder realizar estos procedimientos con la mayor seguridad radiológica tanto para los pacientes como para el personal ocupacionalmente expuesto.

Endoscopy has evolved from a purely diagnostic technique to a therapeutic procedure. This is possible in many cases thanks to the use of fluoroscopy, which entails exposure to ionizing radiation for both patients and the personnel involved. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which necessarily requires fluoroscopy, is classified by the Food and Drug Administration as an examination with a potential risk of triggering radiation induced injuries. This article reviews the biological effects of radiation, the types of radiological equipment used in ERCP, as well as the magnitudes and dosimetric units, to finally address the radio protection elements in the endoscopy room. The objective is to provide the reader with the information to be able to perform these procedures with the greatest radiological safety for both patients and occupationally exposed personnel.

[Radiation protection in endoscopy]. / Protección radiológica en endoscopia.

Endoscopy has evolved from a purely diagnostic technique to a therapeutic procedure. This is possible in many cases thanks to the use of fluoroscopy, which entails exposure to ionizing radiation for both patients and the personnel involved. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which necessarily requires fluoroscopy, is classified by the Food and Drug Administration as an examination with a potential risk of triggering radiation induced injuries. This article reviews the biological effects of radiation, the types of radiological equipment used in ERCP, as well as the magnitudes and dosimetric units, to finally address the radio protection elements in the endoscopy room. The objective is to provide the reader with the information to be able to perform these procedures with the greatest radiological safety for both patients and occupationally exposed personnel.

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection: safety and efficacy in 615 large serrated lesions.

Background and study aim Cold resection is becoming the standard of care for the resection of nonpedunculated colon lesions up to 10 mm in diameter. Sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps), including those ≥ 10 mm, present various characteristics that make them ideal candidates for cold snare polypectomy (CSP). Patients and methods A prospectively maintained database was searched retrospectively for consecutive patients with lesions ≥ 10 mm resected between March 2013 and March 2018. During that period, all SSA/P-appearing lesions were resected using CSP without submucosal injection, except for lesions with endoscopic suspicion of dysplasia or submucosal invasion. Patients with a pathological diagnosis of SSA/P were included in the analysis. Adverse events were recorded up to 21 days following colonoscopy. Results 615 SSA/Ps ≥ 10 mm were resected during 452 colonoscopy procedures in 379 patients (mean age 54.1 years; standard deviation [SD] 11.9 years). Mean polyp size was 13.7 (SD 5.2) mm; 122 lesions (19.8 %) were ≥ 20 mm and 479 lesions (77.9 %) underwent piecemeal resection. Immediate adverse events included persistent abdominal pain that resolved spontaneously within 2 hours in three patients (0.8 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.2 %-2.3 %). One patient with persistent intraprocedural bleeding was successfully treated with a hemostatic clip. No late adverse events were detected. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed in 293 patients (77.3 %) at 23.4 (SD 11.6) months following index colonoscopy; residual/recurrent lesions were diagnosed in 23 patients (7.8 %; 95 %CI 5.0 %-11.6 %). Conclusion CSP without submucosal injection appeared to be safe and effective for the resection of large SSA/Ps.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Rapid On-Site Evaluation by Endosonographer of Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) by cytopathologists during endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) improves adequacy and diagnostic accuracy while reducing the number of needle passes. We evaluated the usefulness of ROSE performed by the endosonographer. METHODS: Patients with an SPL were randomly assigned to EUS-FNA with ROSE or non-ROSE. Procedure duration, number of needle passes, specimen adequacy, and adverse event rates were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were enrolled (33 in the ROSE vs 32 in the non-ROSE group). Both groups were similar in terms of age, sex, size, and location of the lesion. Specimen adequacy rates were high and similar between groups. Mean (standard deviation) procedure duration was shorter in the ROSE versus non-ROSE group (30.0 [11.3] vs 37.0 [7.2] minutes, P < 0.005), as well as the mean (standard deviation) number of needle passes (2.6 [0.8] vs 3.5 [0.8], P < 0.005). Accuracy parameters as sensitivity and accuracy of ROSE by the endosonographer for malignancy were 93% and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After specific training, the endosonographer can accurately evaluate samples during EUS-FNA of SPL, allowing for a shorter procedure duration and a lower number of needle passes.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Liquid Biopsy of Bile based on Targeted Mass Spectrometry for the Diagnosis of Malignant Biliary Strictures.

Bile holds biomarkers of malignant biliary strictures (MBS) but is unsuited for automated analyzers used in routine diagnostic laboratories. Selected reaction monitoring (SRM) is a flexible high-throughput analytical approach based on targeted mass spectrometry (MS) already implemented in clinical settings. We tested the hypothesis that SRM could be used to quantify cancer biomarkers in human bile. An SRM-based assay was developed to simultaneously quantify up to 37 peptides from 13 bile proteins in a developmental cohort of 15 patients (MBS, n = 8; benign biliary stricture or obstruction (BBS), n = 7). The most reliable biomarkers were then absolutely quantified by SRM in a verification cohort of 67 patients (MBS, n = 37; BBS, n = 30). The diagnostic performances of single and combined biomarkers were assessed. In the developmental cohort, SRM-based analysis revealed six protein biomarkers with significantly higher peptide ratios (endogenous vs. standard) in bile from MBS vs. BBS. In the verification cohort, five of these biomarkers proved good diagnostic ability (individual receiver operating characteristic-area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) up to 0.889, accuracies from 67.8% to 83.1%). Combining bile biomarkers and serum CA19-9 in 2 panels allowed differentiating MBS from BBS with up to 0.929 ROC-AUC and 89.8% accuracy. In this study, a newly developed SRM-based assay proved able to simultaneously quantify multiple biomarkers in bile samples. The combination of bile biomarkers with serum CA19-9 was highly accurate for the diagnosis of MBS. Liquid biopsy of bile based on targeted MS is eligible to support MBS diagnosis in clinical practice.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020.

1: ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3: ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Challenging biliary strictures: pathophysiological features, differential diagnosis, diagnostic algorithms, and new clinically relevant biomarkers - part 1.

It is frequently challenging to make the correct diagnosis in patients with biliary strictures. This is particularly important as errors may have disastrous consequences. Benign-appearing strictures treated with stents may later be revealed to be malignant and unnecessary surgery for benign strictures carries a high morbidity rate. In the first part of the review, the essential information that clinicians need to know about diseases responsible for biliary strictures is presented, with a focus on the most recent data. Then, the characteristics and pitfalls of the methods used to make the diagnosis are summarized. These include serum biomarkers, imaging studies, and endoscopic modalities. As tissue diagnosis is the only 100% specific tool, it is described in detail, including techniques for tissue acquisition and their yields, how to prepare samples, and what to expect from the pathologist. Tricks to increase diagnostic yields are described. Clues are then presented for the differential diagnosis between primary and secondary sclerosing cholangitis, IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis, cholangiocarcinoma, pancreatic cancer, autoimmune pancreatitis, and less frequent diseases. Finally, algorithms that will help to achieve the correct diagnosis are proposed.

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2020.

The following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1: ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 - 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends a 3 - 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5: ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).

ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

PROPHYLAXIS: 1:  ESGE recommends routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in all patients without contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic stenting in selected patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (inadvertent guidewire insertion/opacification of the pancreatic duct, double-guidewire cannulation).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE suggests against routine endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy before the insertion of a single plastic stent or an uncovered/partially covered self-expandable metal stent for relief of biliary obstruction.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends against the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP in the case of anticipated incomplete biliary drainage, for severely immunocompromised patients, and when performing cholangioscopy.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests tests of coagulation are not routinely required prior to ERCP for patients who are not on anticoagulants and not jaundiced.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. TREATMENT: 7:  ESGE suggests against salvage pancreatic stenting in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE suggests temporary placement of a biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent for post-sphincterotomy bleeding refractory to standard hemostatic modalities.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9:  ESGE suggests to evaluate patients with post-ERCP cholangitis by abdominal ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) scan and, in the absence of improvement with conservative therapy, to consider repeat ERCP. A bile sample should be collected for microbiological examination during repeat ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. METHODS: In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019.

ESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline.

ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines:- severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock- moderate, within 48 - 72 hours- mild, elective.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS II): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED) guideline update 2019.

Patients with chronic atrophic gastritis or intestinal metaplasia (IM) are at risk for gastric adenocarcinoma. This underscores the importance of diagnosis and risk stratification for these patients. High definition endoscopy with chromoendoscopy (CE) is better than high definition white-light endoscopy alone for this purpose. Virtual CE can guide biopsies for staging atrophic and metaplastic changes and can target neoplastic lesions. Biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (antrum and corpus) and labelled in two separate vials. For patients with mild to moderate atrophy restricted to the antrum there is no evidence to recommend surveillance. In patients with IM at a single location but with a family history of gastric cancer, incomplete IM, or persistent Helicobacter pylori gastritis, endoscopic surveillance with CE and guided biopsies may be considered in 3 years. Patients with advanced stages of atrophic gastritis should be followed up with a high quality endoscopy every 3 years. In patients with dysplasia, in the absence of an endoscopically defined lesion, immediate high quality endoscopic reassessment with CE is recommended. Patients with an endoscopically visible lesion harboring low or high grade dysplasia or carcinoma should undergo staging and treatment. H. pylori eradication heals nonatrophic chronic gastritis, may lead to regression of atrophic gastritis, and reduces the risk of gastric cancer in patients with these conditions, and it is recommended. H. pylori eradication is also recommended for patients with neoplasia after endoscopic therapy. In intermediate to high risk regions, identification and surveillance of patients with precancerous gastric conditions is cost-effective.

Endoscopic surveillance after surgical or endoscopic resection for colorectal cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Digestive Oncology (ESDO) Guideline.

1:  We recommend post-surgery endoscopic surveillance for CRC patients after intent-to-cure surgery and appropriate oncological treatment for both local and distant disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2:  We recommend a high quality perioperative colonoscopy before surgery for CRC or within 6 months following surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3:  We recommend performing surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after CRC surgery.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4:  We do not recommend an intensive endoscopic surveillance strategy, e. g. annual colonoscopy, because of a lack of proven benefit.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5:  After the first surveillance colonoscopy following CRC surgery, we suggest the second colonoscopy should be performed 3 years later, and the third 5 years after the second. If additional high risk neoplastic lesions are detected, subsequent surveillance examinations at shorter intervals may be considered.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6:  After the initial surveillance colonoscopy, we suggest halting post-surgery endoscopic surveillance at the age of 80 years, or earlier if life-expectancy is thought to be limited by comorbidities.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 7:  In patients with a low risk pT1 CRC treated by endoscopy with an R0 resection, we suggest the same endoscopic surveillance schedule as for any CRC.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Updated August 2018.

ESGE suggests endoscopic therapy and/or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the first-line therapy for painful uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis (CP) with an obstructed main pancreatic duct (MPD) in the head/body of the pancreas. The clinical response should be evaluated at 6 - 8 weeks; if it appears unsatisfactory, the patient's case should be discussed again in a multidisciplinary team and surgical options should be considered.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests, for the selection of patients for initial or continued endoscopic therapy and/or ESWL, taking into consideration predictive factors associated with a good long-term outcome. These include, at initial work-up, absence of MPD stricture, a short disease duration, non-severe pain, absence or cessation of cigarette smoking and of alcohol intake, and, after initial treatment, complete removal of obstructive pancreatic stones and resolution of pancreatic duct stricture with stenting.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends ESWL for the clearance of radiopaque obstructive MPD stones larger than 5 mm located in the head/body of the pancreas and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for MPD stones that are radiolucent or smaller than 5 mm. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests restricting the use of endoscopic therapy after ESWL to patients with no spontaneous clearance of pancreatic stones after adequate fragmentation by ESWL.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests treating painful dominant MPD strictures with a single 10-Fr plastic stent for one uninterrupted year if symptoms improve after initial successful MPD drainage. The stent should be exchanged if necessary, based on symptoms or signs of stent dysfunction at regular pancreas imaging at least every 6 months. ESGE suggests consideration of surgery or multiple side-by-side plastic stents for symptomatic MPD strictures persisting beyond 1 year after the initial single plastic stenting, following multidisciplinary discussion. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic drainage over percutaneous or surgical treatment for uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis (CP)-related pseudocysts that are within endoscopic reach.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends retrieval of transmural plastic stents at least 6 weeks after pancreatic pseudocyst regression if MPD disruption has been excluded, and long-term indwelling of transmural double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests the temporary insertion of multiple side-by-side plastic stents or of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for treating CP-related benign biliary strictures.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends maintaining a registry of patients with biliary stents and recalling them for stent removal or exchange.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.