Background: Zenker?s diverticulum is a rare disease in the general population. Its treatment can be carried out by either an endoscopic or surgical approach. The objective of this study was to systematically identify all reports that compare both treatment modalities and to assess the outcomes in terms of length of procedure, length of hospitalization, time until diet introduction, complication rates, and recurrence rates. Methods: A search of Medline and Embase selected all studies that compared different methods of surgical and endoscopic treatment for Zenker?s diverticulum published in the English, Portuguese, and Spanish languages between 1975 and 2014. The meta-analysis was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Data were extracted and analyzed for five different outcomes. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, describing outcomes of endoscopic versus surgical treatment for 596 patients with Zenker?s diverticulum. A meta-analysis of the studies suggested a statistically significant reduction in operating time and length of hospitalization, favoring endoscopic treatment (standardized mean difference (SMD)???78.06, 95?%CI???90.63,???65.48 and SMD???3.72, 95?%CI???4.49,???2.95, respectively), just as with the reduction in the fasting period (SMD???4.30, 95?%CI???5.18,???3.42) and risk of complications (SMD???0.09, 95?%CI 0.03, 0.43) for patients who had undergone the endoscopic approach in comparison with the surgical group.?Also, a statistically significant reduction in the risk of symptom recurrence was seen when the treatment of Zenker?s diverticulum was carried out by a surgical approach compared with endoscopic treatment (SMD 0.08, 95?%CI 0.03, 0.13). Conclusion: Compared with a surgical approach, endoscopic treatment appeared to result in a shorter length of procedure and hospitalization, earlier diet introduction, and lower rates of complications, but in higher rates of symptom recurrence.

Background: To investigate the available data on the treatment of early colorectal cancer (CRC), either endoscopically or surgically.Methods: Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL COCHRANE, LILACS and EBSCO for articles published up to August 2015. No language or dates filters were applied.Inclusion criteria were studies with published data about patients with early colonic or rectal cancer undergoing either endoscopic resection (i.e., mucosectomy or submucosal dissection) or surgical resection (i.e., open or laparoscopic). Extracted data items undergoing meta-analysis were en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, and complications. A complementary analysis was performed on procedure time. The risk of bias among studies was evaluated with funnel-plot expressions, and sensitivity analyses were carried out whenever a high heterogeneity was found. The risk of bias within studies was assessed with the Newcastle score.Results: A total of 12,819 articles were identified in the preliminary search. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, three cohort studies with a total of 768 patients undergoing endoscopic resection and 552 patients undergoing surgical resection were included. The en bloc resection rate risk difference was −11% Conclusions: According to the current available data, the treatment of early CRC by surgical resection is associated with higher curative resection rates and higher en bloc resection rates, despite of higher complications rates, as compared to endoscopic resection. Shorter procedure times are associated with the endoscopic methods of treatment, however high heterogeneity levels limit this conclusion.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, are chronic immune-mediated diseases that present a relapsing and remitting course and requires long-term treatment. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy has changed the management of the disease by reducing the need for hospitalizations, surgeries and improving patient´s quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to discuss the role of anti-TNF agents in IBD, highlighting the situations where its use as first-line therapy would be appropriate. METHODS: Narrative review summarizing the best available evidence on the topic based on searches in databases such as MedLine and PubMed up to April 2020 using the following keywords: “inflammatory bowel disease’’, “anti-TNF agents” and ‘’biologic therapy’’. CONCLUSION: Biological therapy remains the cornerstone in the treatment of IBD. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the choice of the biological agent may be challenging and should take into account several variables. Anti-TNF agents should be considered as first line therapy in specific scenarios such as acute severe ulcerative colitis, fistulizing Crohn’s disease and extra-intestinal manifestations of IBD, given the strong body of evidence supporting its efficacy and safety in these situations.

Background and study aims Ambient air is the most commonly used gas for insufflation in endoscopic procedures worldwide. However, prolonged absorption of air during endoscopic examinations may cause pain and abdominal distension. Carbon dioxide insufflation (CO2i) has been increasingly used as an alternative to ambient air insufflation (AAi) in many endoscopic procedures due to its fast diffusion properties and less abdominal distention and pain. For endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), use of CO2 for insufflation is adequate because this procedure is complex and prolonged. Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the efficacy and safety of CO2 as an insufflation method during ERCP but presented conflicting results. This systematic review and meta-analysis with only RCTs evaluated the efficacy and safety of CO2i versus AAi during ERCP. Methods A literature search was performed using online databases with no restriction regarding idiom or year of publication. Data were extracted by two authors according to a predefined data extraction form. Outcomes evaluated were abdominal pain and distension, complications, procedure duration, and CO2 levels. Results Eight studies (919 patients) were included. Significant results favoring CO2i were less abdominal distension after 1 h (MD: −1.41 [−1.81; −1.0], 95 % CI, I² = 15 %, P < 0.00001) and less abdominal pain after 1 h (MD: −23.80 [−27.50; −20.10], 95 %CI, I² = 9 %, P < 0.00001) and after 6 h (MD: −7.00 [−8.66; −5.33]; 95 % CI, I² = 0 %, P < 0.00001). Conclusion Use of CO2i instead of AAi during ERCP is safe and associated with less abdominal distension and pain after the procedure.