In this prospective multicenter study, we found that although competence cannot be confirmed for all AETs at the end of training, most meet QI thresholds for EUS and ERCP at the end of their first year of independent practice. This finding affirms the effectiveness of training programs. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT02509416.

Background and Aims-Minimum EUS and ERCP volumes that should be offered per trainee in "high quality" advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) are not established. We aimed to define the number of procedures required by an "average" advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) to achieve competence in technical and cognitive EUS and ERCP tasks to help structure AETPs. Methods-ASGE-recognized AETPs were invited to participate; AETs were graded on every fifth EUS and ERCP examination using a validated tool. Grading for each skill was done using a 4-point scoring system and learning curves (LCs) using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis for overall, technical, and cognitive components of EUS and ERCP were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. Generalized linear mixed effects models with a random intercept for each AET were used to generate aggregate LCs allowing us to use data from all AETs to estimate the average learning experience for trainees. Results-Among 62 invited AETPs, 37 AETs from 32 AETPs participated. The majority of AETs reported hands-on EUS (52%, median 20 cases) and ERCP (68%, median 50 cases) experience before starting an AETP. The median number of EUS and ERCPs performed/AET was 400 (range 200-750) and 361 (250-650), respectively. Overall, 2616 examinations were graded

No abstract

LA-ERCP and combined LA-EUS plus LA-ERCP are safe and highly successful diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for a wide variety of pancreatobiliary ailments in RYGB patients.

Background. Improved detection of adenomatous polyps using i-SCAN has mixed results in small studies. Utility of i-SCAN as a primary surveillance modality for colorectal cancer screening during colonoscopy is uncertain. Aim. Comparing high definition white light endoscopy (HDWLE) to i-SCAN in their ability to detect adenomas during colonoscopy. Methods. Prospective cohort study of 1936 average risk patients who had a screening colonoscopy at an ambulatory procedure center. Patients underwent colonoscopy with high definition white light endoscopy withdrawal versus i-SCAN withdrawal during endoscopic screening exam. Primary outcome measurement was adenoma detection rate for i-SCAN versus high definition white light endoscopy. Secondary measurements included polyp size, pathology, and morphology. Results. 1007 patients underwent colonoscopy with i-SCAN and 929 with HDWLE. 618 adenomas were detected in the i-SCAN group compared to 402 in the HDWLE group (p < 0.01). More advanced adenomas (≥10 mm) were found by i-SCAN, 79 versus 47 (p = 0.021) and based upon histology alone 37 versus 18 (p = 0.028). Conclusions. i-SCAN detected significantly more adenomas and advanced adenomas compared to high definition white light endoscopy.