Background and Aims: The abrupt outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 and its rapid spread over many healthcare systems throughout the world has led to a shortage in personal protective equipment (PPE), which cannot be solved by reducing their use or by increasing production. It is thus necessary to promote PPE rational use, highlighting possible differences in terms of efficacy and promoting an effective technique to reuse them.Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, and from the 25 top cited articles, 15 were selected for relevance and impact.Results: Most studies on previous respiratory virus epidemics to date suggest surgical masks are not inferior compared with N95 respirators in terms of protective efficacy among healthcare workers. Therefore, the use of N95 respirators should be limited to high-risk situations. Concerning respirator reuse, highly energetic, shortwave, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) at 254 nm was determined to decontaminate N95 respirators from viral respiratory agents, but UVGI requires careful consideration of the type of respirator and of the biologic target.Conclusions: Rational use and successful reuse of respirators can help in the shortage of PPE during a pandemic. Further studies testing UVGI and other decontamination techniques are an unmet need. The definitive answer to pandemic issues can be found in artificial intelligence and deep learning. These groundbreaking modalities could help in identifying high-risk patients and in suggesting appropriate types and use of PPE. (Gastrointest Endosc 2020;92:519-23.)

No abstract

Ovarian pure clear cell carcinoma is usually diagnosed at an early stage and typically appears as a large unilateral mass with solid components. Patients with clear cell carcinoma developing from endometriosis are younger than other patients with clear cell carcinoma, and clear cell cancers developing from endometriosis more often manifest ground-glass echogenicity of cyst fluid. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Background and study aims Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the current standard for bariatric surgery, but it is affected by several postoperative complications. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) was created as a less invasive alternative to LSG. However, its efficacy and safety compared with LSG is unclear. Materials and methods Relevant publications were identified in MEDLINE/Cochrane/EMBASE/OVID/ PROSPERO and NIH up to January 2020. Studies were selected that included obese patients with a baseline body mass index (BMI) between 30 and 40 kg/m² with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up and with reported incidence of complications. The mean difference in percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 12 months between LSG and ESG represented the primary endpoint. We also assessed the difference in pooled rate of adverse events. The quality of the studies and heterogeneity among them was analyzed. Results Sixteen studies were selected for a total of 2188 patients (LSG: 1429; ESG: 759) with a mean BMI 34.34 and 34.72 kg/m² for LSG and ESG, respectively. Mean %EWL was 80.32 % (± 12.20; 95 % CI; P = 0.001; I² = 98.88) and 62.20 % (± 4.38; 95 % CI; P = 0.005; I² = 65.52) for the LSG and ESG groups, respectively, corresponding to an absolute difference of 18.12 % (± 0.89; 95 % CI, P = 0.0001). The difference in terms of mean rate of adverse events was 0.19 % (± 0.37; 95 %CI; χ 2  = 1.602; P = 0.2056). Conclusions Our analysis showed a moderate superiority of LSG versus ESG. No difference in terms of safety was shown between the two groups. ESG is a less-invasive, repeatable and reversable and acceptable option for mild-moderate obese patients.