Effect of Previous Gastrectomy on the Performance of Postoperative Colonoscopy

Factors affecting cecal intubation time during colonoscopy

In recent years, the morbidity and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have increased significantly in China, and it has become one of the major malignancies that threaten the health of residents. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of CRC. High-quality colonoscopy can effectively reduce the mortality of CRC. Cecal intubation time (CIT) is one of the indicators to reflect the quality of colonoscopy. Studies have found that many factors can affect CIT. This paper reviews the literature to identify the factors that affect CIT, such as those related to doctors, patients, assistive technologies, and equipment, in order to improve the quality of colonoscopy performed by endoscopists.

A randomized prospective study comparing single-balloon-assisted colonoscopy and cap-assisted colonoscopy in patients with previous incomplete conventional colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Cecal intubation may be unsuccessful by conventional colonoscopy in some patients. Single-balloon-assisted colonoscopy (SBC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) were studied to solve this problem. There was no head-to-head comparison between them.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized study from 2018 to 2021 to compare cecal intubation rate of SBC and CAC in patients with previous incomplete conventional colonoscopy. We recruited patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy in two hospitals in Hong Kong. Patients were randomized into SBC group and CAC group in 1:1 ratio. In the case of failure in cecal intubation by allocated method, alternative modality would be performed as rescue.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were recruited. Cecal intubation rate was superior in SBC group (22/22, 100%) than CAC group (16/22, 72.7%) (P = 0.02). No difference in cecal intubation time, polyp detection rate, and diagnostic gain in area not examined previously. SBC induced less discomfort (modified Gloucester comfort score 2.14 vs 2.63, P = 0.03) with use of comparable amount of midazolam and fentanyl as CAC. For patients failed cecal intubation by CAC, all (n = 6) were rescued successfully by SBC. Body weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference were greater in rescue subgroup. More patients were obese (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m) in rescue subgroup (67% vs 19%). None in rescue subgroup had history of successful cecal intubation by conventional colonoscopy (0% vs 56%, P = 0.046). However, we failed to demonstrate significant association in multivariate analysis owing to small sample size. No adverse event was noted.

CONCLUSION

SBC is superior to CAC in cecal intubation in patients with previous incomplete conventional colonoscopy.

Colorectal Neoplasia in CDH1 Pathogenic Variant Carriers: A Multicenter Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Germline variants in CDH1 are associated with elevated risks of diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer. It is uncertain whether there is an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of colonoscopy outcomes in patients with germline CDH1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients were included with a mean age of 46.9 years. Initial colonoscopy found adenomatous polyps in 30 patients (35.3%), including advanced adenomas in 9 (10.6%). No colorectal cancers were identified on index or subsequent colonoscopies (when available).

DISCUSSION

CDH1 carriers have colorectal neoplasia identified at similar rates as in the general population. Despite potential difficulties after gastrectomy, colorectal cancer screening remains important in this population.

Colonoscopy Insertion in Patients with Gastrectomy: Does Position Impact Cecal Intubation Time?

BACKGROUND

A history of abdominal surgery is associated with difficulty in colonoscopy insertion. Few studies have reported effective colonoscopy insertion for patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer.

AIM

We aimed to compare the impact of supine position (SP) and left lateral position (LLP) as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion in patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening or post-polypectomy surveillance after gastrectomy due to stomach cancer were enrolled and randomized to the SP or LLP group as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion. All colonoscopic examinations were performed with a transparent cap. The primary outcome was to compare the cecal intubation time between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 224 patients were enrolled. The mean cecal intubation time was not significantly different between the SP and LLP groups (364.5 s versus 306.9 s; p = 0.105). In patients with a lower body mass index (< 21 kg/m²) or who underwent gastrectomy within three years, the mean cecal intubation time of the LLP group was shorter than the SP group. In the multivariate analysis for the factors affecting to increase in the cecal intubation time (> 5 min), the starting position was not an independent factor.

CONCLUSION

Either the SP or LLP could serve as a possible starting position of colonoscopy insertion for patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer.

Difference in the prevalence of advanced colon adenoma between patients with gastric neoplasm and healthy people: A STROBE-compliant study

We compared the prevalence of adenoma and cancerous colon polyps in patients undergoing endoscopic removal or gastric surgery for gastric adenoma or gastric cancer and in healthy individuals.The medical records of 707 patients with gastric neoplasm and 798 age- and sex-matched healthy subjects were retrospectively analyzed between January 2010 and July 2018. The clinicopathological characteristics, prevalence of colorectal neoplasm diagnosed by colonoscopy, and risk factors for colorectal polyps were also investigated.When comparing the two groups, the prevalence of overall colorectal polyps and its distribution was not different between the two groups (54.0% vs.49.5%, P = .079), whereas, the number of colon polyps (1.20 ± 1.71 vs 0.99 ± 1.54, P = .015) and the maximal size (3.53 ± 6.14 vs 2.08 ± 2.88, P < .001) were significantly larger in the gastric neoplasm group. The prevalence of advanced colon adenoma was significantly higher in the gastric neoplasm group (10.7% vs 3.8%, P < .001). Risk factors such as elevated glucose levels and the presence of gastric neoplasm were related to the prevalence of all colon polyps. The presence of gastric neoplasm is an important risk factor for advanced colon polyps.Patients with gastric neoplasms had a significantly higher prevalence of advanced colon adenoma. Advanced colon adenoma is associated with the chain from benign adenomas through malignant altered adenomas to advanced colon cancer. Thus, patients with gastric neoplasm are regarded as a high-risk group for colorectal cancer and are recommended for screening colonoscopy at the time of diagnosis.

Comparison of bowel-cleansing efficacy of split-dose and same-day dose bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopy in patients with gastrectomy: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

A split dose (SPD) of purgative is the recommended bowel-preparation method for colonoscopy, although for colonoscopy scheduled for the afternoon, a same-day dose (SDD) of purgative is recommended. However, it has not been determined whether SPD or SDD is better in patients with gastrectomy who are at high risk of suboptimal bowel cleansing. We compared the bowel-cleansing efficacy of SPD and SDD regimens in patients with gastrectomy who underwent colonoscopy in the afternoon.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded study. For the SDD group, polyethylene glycol (PEG) was ingested on the day of colonoscopy starting at 7 AM. In the SPD group, 2 L PEG was ingested at 9 PM the day before colonoscopy, and the remaining 2 L from 10 AM on the day of colonoscopy. Colonoscopy was performed from 1:30 PM. Before colonoscopy, the participants completed questionnaires asking about bowel-movement kinetics, adverse events, tolerability, overall satisfaction, and willingness to reuse the protocol. The bowel-cleansing efficacy was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 193 subjects were included (SDD, 95; SPD, 98). The rate of successful bowel cleansing was comparable between the two groups (SDD, 92.6% vs. SPD, 95.9%; P = 0.37). The incidence of adverse events (nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal pain, and dizziness/headache) was also comparable between the two groups. However, sleep disturbance was higher in the SPD group (SDD, 10.5% vs. SPD, 25.5%; P = 0.01). Tolerability did not differ between the SDD and SPD groups (satisfaction, P = 0.11; willingness to reuse, P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

The bowel-cleansing efficacy, safety profile, and patient tolerability of SDD and SPD were comparable. Both SDD and SPD regimens are feasible bowel-preparation methods for patients with gastrectomy who undergo colonoscopy in the afternoon.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002699.