How to decide on stent insertion or surgery in colorectal obstruction?

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in western society and malignant obstruction of the colon accounts for 8%-29% of all large bowel obstructions. Conventional treatment of these patients with malignant obstruction requiring urgent surgery is associated with a greater physiological insult on already nutritionally replete patients. Of late the utility of colonic stents has offered an option in the management of these patients in both the palliative and bridge to surgery setting. This has been the subject of many reviews which highlight its efficacy, particulary in reducing ostomy rates, allowing quicker return to oral diet, minimising extended post-operative recovery as well as some quality of life benefits. The uncertainity in managing patients with malignant colonic obstructions has lead to a more cautious use of stenting technology as community equipoise exists. Decision making analysis has demonstrated that surgeons' favored the use of stents in the palliative setting preferentially when compared to the curative setting where surgery was preferred. We aim to review the literature regarding the use of stent or surgery in colorectal obstruction, and then provide a discourse with regards to the approach in synthesising the data and applying it when deciding the appropriate application of stent or surgery in colorectal obstruction.

胶囊内窥镜在患者体内完全通过小肠:决定因素及甲氧氯普胺引起的改良

Passage of the capsule endoscope to the colon occurs in only approximately three quarters of patients. This study assessed factors that might influence the completeness of small-bowel transit, including orally administered metoclopramide. Clinical and procedural parameters were recorded prospectively for 150 patients undergoing capsule endoscopy. Metoclopramide was not administered to the first 83 patients (Group 1) but was given orally (10 mg) to the subsequent 67 (Group 2). Small-bowel transit was complete in 63 patients in Group 1 (76%). Gastric transit time was significantly longer when the capsule did not reach the colon than when it did (114.9 ±32.6 minutes vs. 26.6 ±2.9 minutes; p = 0.007). Small-bowel transit time also was longer. The likelihood of complete small-bowel passage was not predicted by any clinical or procedural factor. In Group 2 (metoclopramide), the capsule reached the colon in 65 (97%) patients (OR 10.3: 95%CI[2.32, 93.55], p < 0.001). This improvement was associated with a significant reduction in gastric transit time (47.9 ±9.0 minutes vs. 30.8 ±7.5 minutes; p = 0.025). Metoclopramide increases the likelihood of a complete small-bowel examination in patients undergoing capsule endoscopy.

Hypothesized summative anal physiology score correlates but poorly predicts incontinence severity

To explore the relationship between such a construct and an existing continence score. METHODSA retrospective study of incontinent patients who underwent anal physiology (AP) was performed. AP results and Cleveland Clinic Continence Scores (CCCS) were extracted. An anal physiology score (APS) was developed using maximum resting pressures (MRP), anal canal length (ACL), internal and external sphincter defects and pudendal terminal motor latency. Univariate associations between each variable, APS and CCCS were assessed. Multiple regression analyses were performed. RESULTSOf 508 (419 women) patients, 311 had both APS and CCCS measured. Average MRP was 51 mmHg (SD 23.2 mmHg) for men and 39 mmHg (19.2 mmHg) for women. Functional ACL was 1.7 cm for men and 0.7 cm for women. Univariate analyses demonstrated significant associations between CCCS and MRP (P = 0.0002), ACL (P = 0.0006) and pudendal neuropathy (P < 0.0001). The association between APS and CCCS was significant (P < 0.0001) but accounted for only 9.2% of the variability in CCCS. Multiple regression showed that the variables most useful in predicting CCCS were external sphincter defect, pudendal neuropathy and previous pelvic surgery, but only improving the scores predictive ability to 12.5%. CONCLUSIONThis study shows that the ability of AP tests to predict continence scores improves when considered collectively, but that a constructed summation model before and after multiple regression is poor at predicting the variability in continence scores.

胶囊内镜检测不明原因消化道出血患者的非小肠病变

Background: Approximately two thirds of patients undergoing capsule endoscopy for obscure GI bleeding will have an abnormality found in the small intestine. This report describes 9 patients (4 men, 5 women) of 140 with obscure bleeding in whom a source of their blood loss was found in the stomach or the colon at capsule endoscopy. Methods: A review was made of a prospective database of 140 consecutive patients undergoing capsule endoscopy for obscure GI bleeding at a single center. Patients with a definite or likely cause of bleeding within reach of conventional upper or lower GI endoscopy were identified. Results: Three patients had gastric antral vascular ectasia and another an inflamed pyloric canal polyp. Two patients had actively bleeding cecal carcinoma, missed at previous colonoscopies. Two others had bleeding cecal angiodysplasia. The final patient had severe nonspecific cecal inflammation. The identification of these lesions was aided by the suspected blood indicator. All patients underwent endoscopic therapy or surgery for their non-small-bowel lesions. Conclusions: Like push enteroscopy, capsule endoscopy also can identify lesions within reach of conventional endoscopy and colonoscopy. These subsequently can be treated successfully. The reasons why these lesions have been missed are unclear.