ABSTRACT

Background

Gallbladder polyps are seen in up to 7% of adults and carry a low malignancy risk. Guidelines on indication for surgery and follow-up remain controversial because of regional differences in the development of malignancy. This study compares European practice guidelines for gallbladder polyps and assesses the percentage of patients in whom cholecystectomy was indicated according to the guidelines with a true adenoma postoperatively.

Methods

Dutch patients with active follow-up or surgery for gallbladder polyps between 2018 and 2020 in 26 participating centres were included. Data on demographics, imaging characteristics, surgery and histopathology were assessed. Indications for cholecystectomy were examined for all patients comparing 2017 and 2022 European guidelines.

Results

A cohort of 302 patients was included. Patients in follow-up underwent imaging three times (median) and were followed up during a median of 23.2 months (IQR 10.9–47.4). In total, 88 patients (29%) underwent cholecystectomy after a median period of 23 months and a median of two instances of imaging. In 71 of 88 patients (81%) who underwent cholecystectomy, the gallbladder polyps was a valid indication for cholecystectomy according to 2017 guidelines, compared to 68 of 88 (77%) according to 2022 guidelines. The difference only occurred due to age as a risk factor which changed from 50 to 60 years of age. Of 71 operated patients, non-neoplastic polyps were found in 49 (69%), no gallbladder wall abnormality was found in 23 (32%). An adenoma was found in six patients (9%), of which three had low grade dysplasia and one had high grade dysplasia.

Discussion

Despite revision of guidelines in 2022, a significant number of patients still undergo follow-up and cholecystectomy for non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps, indicating the need for a more comprehensive risk assessment algorithm in the management of gallbladder polyps.

ABSTRACT

This international, multidisciplinary consensus report represents the first effort to systematically define and characterize fatty pancreas. A key outcome of this endeavor was the recommendation to adopt “fatty pancreas” as the standardized and inclusive term to describe all forms of fat accumulation in the pancreas. This terminological consensus provides a critical foundation for unified reporting and clinical communication. Another major contribution of the report is the consensus on diagnostic imaging findings, which was based on radiological and endoscopic modalities. The proposed criteria aim to enhance consistency in clinical assessment and support the development of standardized research protocols. In addition to establishing terminology and diagnostic frameworks, the report also synthesizes current knowledge across a wide range of relevant domains. These include the etiology and epidemiology of fatty pancreas, as well as its associations with alcohol consumption, smoking, acute and chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and surgical outcomes. The potential links between fatty pancreas and neoplastic conditions such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and pancreatic cancer are also addressed, alongside the current understanding of its metabolic implications (beta-cell function and glucose homeostasis) and treatment strategies. Throughout the consensus process, a consistent theme emerged: the limited availability of high-quality, prospective clinical data. Therefore, many of the recommendations in this report are based on expert consensus rather than strong empirical evidence. As such, the statements require rigorous prospective validation before they can be adopted into routine clinical practice. This underscores a critical need for further research, particularly studies aimed at clarifying causal relationships, validating diagnostic tools, and determining the clinical relevance of fatty pancreas across diverse patient populations. This report serves as both a summary of our current understanding and a roadmap for future investigations, aiming to close existing knowledge gaps and guide evidence-based clinical practice in this emerging field.

ABSTRACT

Background and Aim

Direct cholangioscopy and pancreatoscopy have become widely implemented techniques in the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms of several pancreaticobiliary disorders. This study aimed to generate general and indication-specific European consensus recommendations on cholangioscopy and pancreatoscopy.

Methods

Supported by the available literature, statements were formulated and grouped into the following categories: (1) pre-procedural considerations, (2) general technical aspects, (3) biliopancreatic stones, (4) biliary strictures, and (5) other indications. The evidence level of each statement was determined using the GRADE methodology. Cholangioscopy experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. When 80% consensus was not reached, the statement was modified based on expert feedback and subjected to an additional Delphi round. Statements were rejected if they failed to reach consensus after three Delphi rounds.

Results

Thirty cholangioscopy experts completed the Delphi process. Forty-two (97.6%) generated statements were accepted, of which 39 (92.9%) in the first Delphi round. 12 statements on preprocedural and periprocedural settings, 8 statements on biliopancreatic stones, 13 statements on biliary strictures, and 9 statements on other indications were accepted.

Conclusion

Using a modified Delphi process, we developed general and indication-specific consensus recommendations for cholangioscopy to guide clinical practice.

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Abdominal distension is an objective visible sign of increased abdominal girth. Bloating is a feeling of abdominal fullness and discomfort. Bloating may be associated or not with abdominal distension. Bloating and abdominal distension are among the most commonly reported gastrointestinal symptoms and may be associated with both organic and functional disorders. Nevertheless, specific consensus and recommendations on diagnosis, underlying mechanisms, assessment and management of functional bloating and abdominal distension are still lacking. The aim of this European consensus, then, is to provide expert opinions and recommendations on the epidemiology, diagnosis, pathophysiology and treatment of functional bloating and abdominal distension.

Methods

A multidisciplinary team of experts in the field, including European specialists and national societies, participated in the development of this consensus. Relevant questions were formulated and addressed through a literature review and statements were developed and voted using a Delphi process.

Results

Functional bloating and abdominal distension are common and frequently overlap with other disorders of gut-brain interaction. Diagnosis is made according to the Rome IV criteria after the exclusion of organic disease, based on the physical examination and assessment of the patient's medical history and alarming signs. In the absence of alarming signs or any relevant finding, clinical laboratory, imaging or endoscopic tests are unnecessary. The pathophysiology of functional bloating and abdominal distension is multifactorial and involves visceral hypersensitivity, abdomino-phrenic dyssynergia, intestinal dysmotility and dysbiosis. Treatment may include dietary modifications (e.g. lactose-limiting diet and low FODMAP diet), probiotics, antispasmodics (e.g., otilonium bromide, peppermint oil), rifaximin, secretagogues (e.g., linaclotide), neuromodulators (e.g., serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, buspirone), and plethysmography-based biofeedback. Moreover, cognitive behaviour therapy and hypnotherapy can be used in case of functional bloating associated with irritable bowel syndrome.

Conclusion

This consensus provides an evidence-based framework for the evaluation and treatment of patients with functional bloating and abdominal distension.