Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has profoundly transformed the discipline of gastroenterology, emerging in the 1990s. This cutting-edge imaging modality integrates endoscopy with ultrasound technology, enabling the visualization of the digestive tract and adjacent organs with unparalleled clarity1.
Employing high-frequency sound waves, EUS generates precise images of the pancreas, gallbladder, liver, and lymph nodes. Its efficacy in diagnosing a wide array of conditions within the digestive system, spanning from the esophagus to the colon, is noteworthy1.
Recent EUS data highlights its remarkable diagnostic accuracy. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) exhibit accuracy ranges of 67% to 100%, with FNB demonstrating a slight edge over FNA in certain studies2.
The procedure’s duration is typically under an hour, necessitating minimal preparation. Patients are required to fast for at least six hours prior to the examination. For EUS of the lower GI tract, colon cleansing may be imperative1.
Key Takeaways
- EUS combines endoscopy and ultrasound for detailed digestive tract imaging
- Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB ranges from 67% to 100%
- EUS can identify conditions throughout the digestive system
- The procedure usually takes less than an hour
- Minimal preparation is required, mainly fasting before the exam
Understanding Endoscopic Ultrasound Technology
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) technology has profoundly transformed the landscape of gastrointestinal diagnostics and therapeutics. This groundbreaking methodology integrates endoscopy with high-frequency ultrasound, facilitating the detailed visualization of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent structures.
Evolution of EUS From the 1990s
Significant advancements in EUS technology have been observed post-1990s. The field has witnessed substantial enhancements in imaging quality, needle technologies, and procedure versatility. These developments have broadened EUS applications, significantly impacting oncology and pancreaticobiliary disorders.
Components and Technical Specifications
Contemporary EUS systems are comprised of several critical components. The GF-UCT180 curved linear array echoendoscope is indispensable for therapeutic interventions such as tissue sampling and cyst drainage3. Ultrasound miniature probes, available in frequencies ranging from 7.5 to 20 MHz, are essential for advanced EUS and EBUS procedures3.
EUS needles, including the EZ Shot™ 3 Plus FNB and EZ Shot 3 FNA, are available in 19, 22, and 25 G sizes, ensuring optimal puncturability3. The ARIETTA™ 850 ultrasound processor, equipped with optional software, supports advanced imaging modalities like Shear Wave Measurement and Real-time Tissue Elastography3.
Current Applications in Modern Medicine
EUS is indispensable in diagnosing and staging various conditions. In pancreatic cancer management, EUS exhibits high accuracy in detecting vascular invasion, with a sensitivity of 70% for venous and 66.7% for arterial invasion4. EUS also demonstrates promise in altering resectability status in certain pancreatic cancer cases, complementing CT scans4.
Contrast Harmonic Imaging significantly enhances tissue vascularity assessment using intravenous gas-filled microbubbles3. It is, though, imperative to acknowledge the risk of complications such as infection or bleeding during extra-luminal EUS-guided procedures3.
As EUS technology continues to evolve, its role in gastrointestinal medicine is anticipated to expand, leading to enhanced diagnostic precision and therapeutic efficacy for patients.
Clinical Applications and Diagnostic Capabilities
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has transformed gastrointestinal medicine, exhibiting a broad spectrum of applications. It excels in diagnosing and staging gastrointestinal cancers, evaluating submucosal lesions, and assessing pancreaticobiliary disorders.
EUS diagnostic accuracy for focal liver lesions stands at an impressive 92.4%, while for parenchymal liver diseases, it reaches 96.6%5. These high accuracy rates underscore the effectiveness of EUS in liver-related diagnoses.
The versatility of EUS extends to therapeutic interventions. EUS-guided liver abscess drainage boasts a 90.7% success rate, both clinically and technically5. For gastric varices interventions, the success rate climbs to 98%, with an 84% obliteration rate5.
In pancreatic cancer diagnosis, EUS plays a critical role. With pancreatic cancer being the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S. and 80-90% of cases unresectable at diagnosis, early detection is vital6. EUS offers superior assessment compared to traditional imaging techniques for pancreatic cystic lesions.
| EUS Application | Success Rate |
|---|---|
| Focal Liver Lesion Diagnosis | 92.4% |
| Parenchymal Liver Disease Diagnosis | 96.6% |
| Liver Abscess Drainage | 90.7% |
| Gastric Varices Interventions | 98% |
Advanced EUS techniques like real-time elastography, contrast-enhanced EUS, and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy have further expanded its diagnostic and therapeutic applications6. These developments highlight the ongoing evolution of EUS in modern medicine.
Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) Statistics
Endoscopic ultrasound has emerged as a vital tool in contemporary medicine, witnessing an increase in both its application and efficacy across the globe. This segment explores EUS global statistics and endoscopic ultrasound success rates, shedding light on its universal acceptance and diagnostic prowess.
Global Usage and Adoption Rates
The acceptance of EUS in medical institutions worldwide has been substantial. A study involving 69 patients with lower gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions reported a technical success rate of 90.6% for linear EUS, excluding rectal examinations7. This high success rate highlights the escalating adoption of EUS technology within clinical environments.
Success Rates in Diagnostic Procedures
EUS has demonstrated exceptional accuracy in diverse diagnostic procedures. In the detection of obstructive jaundice, EUS achieves an accuracy of up to 98%8. For biliary tract cancer (BTC), EUS-guided tissue acquisition exhibits a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 97% in a meta-analysis of 957 patients9.
| Diagnostic Procedure | EUS Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Obstructive Jaundice | Up to 98% |
| BTC (Sensitivity) | 80% |
| BTC (Specificity) | 97% |
Regional Distribution and Availability
The availability of EUS technology varies by region, despite its increasing global presence. In Japan, EUS has been instrumental in diagnosing and managing biliary tract cancer, a leading cause of cancer mortality in the country9. The introduction of CGP in Japan in June 2019 has significantly enhanced the utility of EUS-guided tissue acquisition. A study revealed that 38.9% of patients harbored genetic variants that could serve as therapeutic targets9.
As EUS technology progresses, its global distribution and availability are anticipated to expand, leading to enhanced diagnostic outcomes and improved patient care worldwide.
EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Performance
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has emerged as a vital diagnostic modality for gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary pathologies. Its performance metrics underscore its efficacy in clinical applications.
Diagnostic Accuracy Rates
EUS-FNA exhibits remarkable diagnostic accuracy in diverse studies. An exhaustive analysis of 504 samples from 168 patients revealed a diagnostic accuracy of 90.5% after one needle pass, escalating to 97.6% after two passes10. This notable enhancement highlights the significance of multiple passes in achieving superior outcomes.
Sampling Techniques and Outcomes
Enhanced EUS-FNA accuracy is attributed to various sampling methodologies. The adoption of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) has shown considerable promise in augmenting diagnostic efficacy. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that MOSE significantly enhances diagnostic accuracy in EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling11. Ongoing research focuses on refining fine needle aspiration techniques, including the exploration of different needle gauges and sampling approaches to enhance tissue acquisition.
Comparative Analysis with Traditional Methods
In comparison to traditional methods, EUS-FNA exhibits superior performance in specific contexts. A study involving 71 patients with biliary tract cancer reported a sensitivity of 93%, specificity of 85%, and overall diagnostic accuracy of 89%12. These figures surpass conventional imaging techniques, underscoring EUS-FNA’s value in complex diagnostic scenarios.
The integration of EUS-FNA into clinical practice has markedly enhanced the diagnosis and staging of gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary conditions. As techniques evolve and technology advances, EUS-FNA’s accuracy continues to improve, solidifying its critical role in contemporary medicine.
Latest Advancements in EUS Technology
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has undergone a transformative evolution, emerging from its inception in the 1990s. The evolution of EUS from a purely diagnostic tool to an interventional one has revolutionized the management of pancreatic cancer13.
The global endoscopic ultrasound needles market, valued at $152.3 million in 2022, is projected to reach $266.1 million by 2031, with a 6.2% CAGR14. This growth is a testament to the increasing adoption of EUS-guided fine needle injection (EUS-FNI) techniques. These techniques, utilized for over two decades, have significantly enhanced chemotherapy effectiveness through direct tumor injections13.
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into EUS technology represents a significant advancement. AI-enhanced EUS exhibits superior diagnostic accuracy in identifying subepithelial lesions, outperforming even expert endoscopists. For lesions exceeding 20 mm, AI achieves 90% accuracy, 91.7% sensitivity, and 83.3% specificity, marking a notable improvement over human expertise15.
In the realm of pancreatic cancer diagnostics, deep learning models utilizing EUS images have demonstrated remarkable efficacy. One such model achieved 99.4% sensitivity, 98.6% specificity, and 99.3% accuracy in detecting pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma15. These advancements are critical, given pancreatic cancer’s status as the seventh leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally, with a mere 10% five-year survival rate at diagnosis13.
| AI-Enhanced EUS Performance | Lesions <20 mm | Lesions >20 mm |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 86.3% | 90.0% |
| Sensitivity | 86.3% | 91.7% |
| Specificity | 62.5% | 83.3% |
These advancements in EUS technology, coupled with ongoing research and development, promise to significantly enhance diagnostic accuracy and treatment outcomes in gastroenterology and oncology.
Cost Analysis and Healthcare Economics
The financial implications of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) are instrumental in its integration into healthcare systems. This discourse examines the economic dimensions of EUS, encompassing the costs of equipment, reimbursement rates, and the outcomes of cost-effectiveness analyses.
Equipment Investment Overview
The initiation of EUS technology necessitates a considerable financial commitment. The acquisition of traditional EUS systems, encompassing the ultrasound apparatus, surpasses $200,000. This substantial initial expenditure poses a significant hurdle for smaller healthcare entities contemplating EUS adoption.
Procedure Reimbursement Rates
Reimbursement rates for EUS procedures exhibit variability across different healthcare systems and insurance paradigms. In the United States, EUS-guided biopsies generally command higher reimbursement rates than CT or US-guided procedures, attributed to their enhanced diagnostic precision and complexity16. This financial advantage can mitigate the initial equipment costs over the long term.
Cost-Effectiveness Studies
Recent investigations have illuminated the economic merits of EUS in diverse clinical contexts. For pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk cohorts, EUS has demonstrated cost-effectiveness. The median survival for individuals with pancreatic cancers detected through surveillance was 9.8 years, contrasting with 1.5 years for those diagnosed outside surveillance17. This pronounced survival advantage underpins the cost-effectiveness of EUS-based screening initiatives.
In a comparison between EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), EUS-BD exhibited a lower incidence of pancreatitis (2% vs 10%) and fewer overall complications18. These diminished complication rates imply prospective cost savings in patient management and enhanced outcomes, augmenting the economic rationale for EUS in clinical settings.
Safety Profile and Complication Rates
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) safety statistics reveal impressive success rates across various procedures. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) boasts a pooled technical success rate of 96.9% and a clinical success rate of 90.6%19. These high success rates underscore the procedure’s efficacy in treating patients.
While EUS procedures are generally safe, they’re not without risks. The pooled incidence of overall adverse events (AEs) with EUS-GE is 13.0%19. The most common complication is stent maldeployment, occurring in 4.6% of cases19. Serious AEs are rare, with a pooled incidence of 1.2%19.
EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) shows similar success rates, ranging from 69% to 100% for technical success and 70% to 100% for clinical success20. Interestingly, EUS-guided procedures have a higher success rate in malignant diseases (90.2%) compared to benign conditions (77.3%)20.
When comparing EUS-BD to other procedures, it shows favorable outcomes. EUS-BD has comparable technical success rates to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (90.8% vs. 90.3%) but higher clinical success rates (89.1% vs. 73%)20. The incidence of pancreatitis is significantly lower in EUS (0%) compared to ERCP (19.7–35.7%)20.
| Procedure | Technical Success Rate | Clinical Success Rate | Complication Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| EUS-GE | 96.9% | 90.6% | 13.0% |
| EUS-BD | 69-100% | 70-100% | Varies |
| ERCP | 95.6% | 92.8% | 5% (overall) |
These endoscopic ultrasound complications data highlight the importance of skilled operators and proper patient selection in minimizing risks and optimizing outcomes in EUS procedures.
Training Requirements and Learning Curve Statistics
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) necessitates profound training for practitioners to attain expertise. The learning curve for EUS is formidable, requiring a substantial investment of time and resources. EUS training statistics elucidate the intricacy of mastering this sophisticated diagnostic instrument.
Certification Requirements
Gastroenterology fellowship training in the United States entails a mandatory 3-year program. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandates a minimum core period of 18 months of clinical training during this fellowship21. For EUS certification, practitioners must undergo additional specialized training beyond the standard gastroenterology fellowship.
Competency Milestones
The endoscopic ultrasound learning curve is delineated by specific competency milestones. ACGME establishes threshold requirements for assessing competency in standard procedures. These include 130 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs), 140 colonoscopies, and 25 capsule endoscopies21. For EUS, the learning curve is even more demanding. Experienced gastroenterologists in studies have performed a minimum of 1000 EUS-FNA procedures and over 200 contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS procedures22.
Training Program Success Rates
Advanced endoscopy training, including EUS, typically necessitates an additional year after the 3-year gastroenterology fellowship. Some programs offer up to 24 months of specialized training for therapeutic endoscopic procedures21. The success of these programs is evident in the high diagnostic accuracy rates achieved by trained practitioners. EUS-FNA has shown a pooled sensitivity of 87-91% and specificity of 94-96% for diagnosing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma23.
The complexity of EUS training highlights the necessity for exhaustive programs and ongoing skill development. As technology evolves, continuous education remains imperative for maintaining proficiency in this critical diagnostic tool.
Patient Outcomes and Satisfaction Metrics
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has demonstrated significant efficacy in patient outcomes and satisfaction. The efficacy of EUS varies based on the procedure and condition treated. For obesity treatment, endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBTs) have shown favorable weight loss outcomes, though exact percentages are not available24.
In cases of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) related gastrointestinal adverse events, EUS has proven invaluable in assessing inflammation extent. Extensive colitis is observed in 23-86% of cases, while isolated right-sided colitis and ileitis occur in 3-8% and 2-16% of cases, respectively24. These statistics are critical in guiding treatment decisions and improving patient outcomes.
Endoscopic ultrasound satisfaction is influenced by procedure duration and effectiveness. A comparative study of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) for colorectal polyps revealed complete resection rates of 91.8% for CSP and 94.6% for CEMR. The mean resection times were 91.30 seconds for CSP and 133.51 seconds for CEMR, potentially impacting patient comfort24.
For patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), EUS has shown efficiency in obtaining measurements. A pilot study of 22 EoE patients achieved a full set of measurements from both mid and distal esophagus in less than 10 minutes. This rapid procedure time contributes to positive endoscopic ultrasound satisfaction25.
Despite being used in only 1% of all endoscopies, EUS’s efficiency and effectiveness suggest a growing role in gastrointestinal diagnostics. As research advances, we anticipate more detailed data on EUS patient outcomes and satisfaction metrics across various gastrointestinal conditions.
Future Trends and Technological Developments
The realm of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) is witnessing an exponential surge in innovation and growth. Anticipated advancements herald a future where diagnostics are more precise and clinical applications are broader.
Emerging Applications
Recent advancements in EUS are significantly improving the detection of pancreatic cancer. EUS exhibits a diagnostic accuracy of 91% for pancreatic cancer, outperforming CT (66%) and abdominal ultrasonography (64%)26. This superior efficacy is fueling its increasing adoption in clinical settings.
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into EUS diagnostics is transforming the field. AI achieves 86.3% accuracy in detecting subepithelial lesions smaller than 20 mm, surpassing human experts’ 73.3%15. This development indicates AI’s critical role in future EUS applications.
Research Directions
Research is currently focused on refining EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) techniques. EUS-FNA demonstrates an 80% sensitivity for detecting malignant biliary strictures, significantly surpassing traditional methods27. This advancement is driving research towards even more precise sampling methodologies.
Another promising area is the development of AI models for differentiating pancreatic lesions. One AI model identified pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with 99.4% sensitivity and 98.6% specificity, highlighting the AI’s capability for highly accurate automated diagnostics15.
Predicted Market Growth
The EUS market is anticipated to experience substantial growth. The increasing prevalence of gastrointestinal disorders and an aging population are driving up demand for EUS procedures. In 2023, 50,550 people in the USA succumbed to pancreatic cancer, underscoring the critical need for advanced diagnostic tools like EUS26.
Innovations such as the EndoSound Vision System™ are making EUS more accessible to smaller healthcare facilities. This trend is expected to broaden the market reach of EUS technology, propelling further growth and development in the field.
| Diagnostic Method | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| EUS | 91% | 86% | 89% |
| CT | 90% | 87% | 89% |
| MRI | 93% | 89% | 90% |
| PET | 89% | 70% | 84% |
Conclusion
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as a cornerstone in modern healthcare, transforming diagnostic and interventional practices. Its profound impact on healthcare is underscored by its high sensitivity and specificity in identifying diverse conditions. For example, EUS’s sensitivity in detecting local, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer stands at 98%, outperforming CT’s 86% sensitivity28.
The trajectory of endoscopic ultrasound’s development is promising, with ongoing innovations augmenting its capabilities. The integration of deep-learning-assisted EUS has yielded remarkable diagnostic accuracy, with a pooled sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 95% for pancreatic tumors28. This synergy with artificial intelligence heralds a future where EUS will be even more integral to early detection and precise diagnosis.
EUS’s efficacy in complex procedures, such as biliary drainage, is also noteworthy. A recent study reported a technical success rate of 97.8% for EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy, with a median procedure time of just 13 minutes29. This efficiency and effectiveness highlight EUS’s capacity to enhance patient outcomes and diminish healthcare expenditures.
Looking forward, the EUS’s influence on healthcare is anticipated to expand. Its ability to detect abnormalities in 42% of high-risk patients, surpassing MRI’s 33% and CT’s 11%, positions EUS as a vital tool in early cancer detection and staging28. The future of endoscopic ultrasound is marked by its ongoing refinement and broader application across medical specialties, promising enhanced patient care and more precise, minimally invasive interventions.
FAQ
What is Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)?
How has EUS technology evolved over the years?
What are the primary clinical applications of EUS?
What is the global adoption rate of EUS?
What is EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA)?
How does the cost-effectiveness of EUS compare to traditional diagnostic methods?
What are the safety considerations for EUS procedures?
What training is required to perform EUS procedures?
How do patient outcomes and satisfaction rates compare for EUS versus alternative procedures?
What are some emerging applications and future trends in EUS technology?
Source Links
- Endoscopic ultrasound – Mayo Clinic – https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/endoscopic-ultrasound/about/pac-20385171
- Contrast-enhanced guided endoscopic ultrasound procedures – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11130571/
- Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) – https://medical.olympusamerica.com/procedure/endoscopic-ultrasound-eus
- Diagnostic precision of endoscopic ultrasound versus contrast-enhanced computed tomography in detection of vascular involvement in pancreatic and periampullary cancers as compared to surgery – https://apc.amegroups.org/article/view/7870/html
- Diagnostic and therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in liver diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10950627/
- Basic Principles and Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Differentiation of Pancreatic Cancer from Other Pancreatic Lesions: A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Pancreatic Cancer – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11084399/
- Feasibility and clinical value of linear endoscopic ultrasonography imaging in the lower gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions – Scientific Reports – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57130-x
- The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in detecting common bile duct (CBD) stones missed post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with calculous obstructive jaundice – The Egyptian Journal of Internal Medicine – https://ejim.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43162-024-00374-w
- Clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for comprehensive genomic profiling of patients with biliary tract cancer, especially with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma – https://www.e-ce.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.5946/ce.2023.139
- Establishing the optimal number of passes during EUS-FNB for diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions: Prospective multicenter study – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10997423/
- Role of macroscopic on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy: Results of a multicentric prospective study – https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v16/i11/595.htm
- Utility and clinical significance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for diagnosing lymphadenopathies in biliary tract cancer – Scientific Reports – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-87473-y
- Current status of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided antitumor treatment for pancreatic cancer – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11718125/
- Global Endoscopic Ultrasound Needles Market Poised for Significant Growth, projected to Reach US$ 266.1 Million by 2031, Driven by Advancements in Diagnostic Procedures | TMR – https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/01/22/3013337/32656/en/Global-Endoscopic-Ultrasound-Needles-Market-Poised-for-Significant-Growth-projected-to-Reach-US-266-1-Million-by-2031-Driven-by-Advancements-in-Diagnostic-Procedures-TMR.html
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Ultrasound: Current Developments, Limitations and Future Directions – https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/16/24/4196
- Comparative Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsies vs. Percutaneous Biopsies of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance – https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/13/11/3108
- Review of the cost-effectiveness of surveillance for hereditary pancreatic cancer – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11255025/
- Comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as first-line palliation in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11372544/
- Adverse events with endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction—A systematic review and meta‐analysis – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11497769/
- Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage – https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/16/9/1616
- Gastrointestinal endoscopy training in the United States: Program structure and competence assessment – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11227727/
- Deep Learning in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Breakthrough in Detecting Distal Cholangiocarcinoma – https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/16/22/3792
- The role of endoscopic ultrasound in the detection of pancreatic lesions in high-risk individuals – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11255057/
- No title found – https://www.e-ce.org/articles/current.php?vol=57&no=6
- Utilizing a balloon sheath and miniprobe for diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound in eosinophilic esophagitis: a case series – The Ultrasound Journal – https://theultrasoundjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13089-024-00380-7
- Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Based Diagnosis of Pancreatic Lesions: Narrative Review – https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/2/172
- Frontiers | The past, present, and future of endoscopic management for biliary strictures: technological innovations and stent advancements – https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1334154/full
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis and Management – https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/11/1156
- Safety and efficacy of novel oblique-viewing scope for B2-endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy – https://www.e-ce.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.5946/ce.2023.129