Publications by authors named "I Hritz"

1: ESGE recommends the combination of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based tissue acquisition as the preferred diagnostic approach for tissue acquisition in patients with jaundice and distal extrahepatic biliary stricture in the absence of a pancreatic mass. 2: ESGE suggests that brushing cytology should be completed along with fluoroscopy-guided biopsies, wherever technically feasible, in patients with perihilar biliary strictures. 3: ESGE suggests EUS-TA for perihilar strictures when ERCP-based modalities yield insufficient results, provided that curative resection is not feasible and/or when cross-sectional imaging has shown accessible extraluminal disease.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • The study compared three techniques for ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) in patients who had undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: enteroscopy-assisted (EA-ERCP), laparoscopy-assisted (LA-ERCP), and endoscopic ultrasound-directed (EDGE).
  • 67 studies were analyzed, showing that EDGE had the highest technical success rate at 96%, followed by LA-ERCP at 93%, and EA-ERCP at 77%, with significant differences between EA-ERCP and the other methods.
  • The overall rates of adverse events were similar across all techniques, suggesting that EDGE and LA-ERCP are both effective and as safe
View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • Pancreatic cysts vary in their risk of cancer, making it important to differentiate between mucinous and non-mucinous types, as mucinous cysts can become malignant.
  • This study compares the effectiveness of measuring intracystic glucose and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels using endoscopic ultrasound for diagnosing these cysts, involving data from 91 patients who had fine-needle aspiration.
  • Results showed that while intracystic glucose is highly sensitive (96.2%) for identifying mucinous cysts, its specificity (79.5%) is lower compared to CEA, which is very specific (100%) but less sensitive (69.2%).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF