Amateau, Stuart K.

Acute cholecystitis affects ∼200,000 individuals annually in the United States, with laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the gold standard treatment. However, in high-risk surgical candidates, alternative drainage methods are necessary. Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) has traditionally served as the primary alternative intervention, offering rapid decompression, but is limited by a negative impact on the patient’s quality of life, the risk of long-term or even permanent tube placement, adverse events, and high recurrence rates. Endoscopic approaches, such as endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and, more recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), have emerged as viable alternatives to PT-GBD. EUS-GBD, first introduced in 2007, offers technical and clinical outcomes comparable to PT-GBD with fewer adverse events, shorter hospital stays, and lower rates of recurrence. The introduction of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has revolutionized EUS-GBD, simplifying deployment and enabling subsequent internal gallbladder access, which allows additional interventions such as cholecystoscopy and stone removal. EUS-GBD is now supported by international guidelines, and 1 device has achieved FDA approval for the management of acute cholecystitis in nonsurgical candidates. Proper patient selection is essential, guided by multidisciplinary evaluation, with EUS-GBD contraindicated in specific scenarios such as gallbladder perforation, coagulopathy, and large-volume ascites. Technical considerations include choice of access site (transgastric versus transduodenal), stent type, and procedural route [direct (freehand) or wire-guided]. Postprocedural care and stent management remain variable and nonstandardized. Emerging data suggest that interval cholecystectomy can still be performed safely after EUS-GBD. As adoption of EUS-GBD with LAMS expands, structured training and standardization of practice are crucial to optimizing outcomes.

Abstract Background and study aims The Full-Thickness Resection Device (FTRD) provides a novel treatment option for lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection techniques. There are limited data on the efficacy and safety of FTRD for resection of upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) lesions. Patients and methods This was an international multicenter retrospective study, including patients who had an endoscopic resection of an upper GIT lesion using the FTRD between January 2017 and February 2019. Results Fifty-six patients from 13 centers were included. The most common lesions were mesenchymal neoplasms (n = 23, 41 %), adenomas (n = 7, 13 %), and hamartomas (n = 6, 11 %). Eighty-four percent of lesions were located in the stomach, and 14 % in the duodenum. The average size of lesions was 14 mm (range 3 to 33 mm). Deployment of the FTRD was technically successful in 93 % of patients (n = 52) leading to complete and partial resection in 43 (77 %) and 9 (16 %) patients, respectively. Overall, the FTRD led to negative histological margins (R0 resection) in 38 (68 %) of patients. A total of 12 (21 %) mild or moderate adverse events (AEs) were reported. Follow-up endoscopy was performed in 31 patients (55 %), on average 88 days after the procedure (IQR 68–138 days). Of these, 30 patients (97 %) did not have any residual or recurrent lesion on endoscopic examination and biopsy, with residual adenoma in one patient (3 %). Conclusions Our results suggest a high technical success rate and an acceptable histologically complete resection rate, with a low risk of AEs and early recurrence for FTRD resection of upper GIT lesions.