A Head-to-Head Comparison of Computed Tomography Colonography, Optical Colonoscopy, and Colon Endoscopic Capsule for the Detection of Polyps After Partial Colectomy or Rectosigmoidectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Pilot Study

Background and objective Optical colonoscopy is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and it allows for biopsy and resection, as well as documentation of synchronous lesions. CT colonography (CTC) and colon endoscopic capsule (CEC) are also recommended as alternative minimally invasive or non-invasive procedures. Prospective studies comparing these three approaches are scarce in the current literature. In light of this, the aim of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy of polyp detection between these three methods in patients with a history of curative surgical resection of CRC. Methods Patients were consecutively recruited and all procedures were sequentially conducted on the same day. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of polyps, whereas secondary endpoints were the detection of polyps according to size and location, and the adverse events caused by these procedures. Results A total of 21 patients were consecutively included and all of them underwent all three interventions. No adverse events, local recurrences, or metachronous lesions were detected. In two cases with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CTC unveiled distant metastasis. Optical colonoscopy registered a mean of 0.4 polyp >6 mm and 1.3 polyps <6 mm per patient. CTC unveiled only 0.5 polyp >6 mm/patient and no smaller lesions were documented, whereas findings for the colon capsule comprised an average of 0.4 polyps >6 mm and 0.7 polyps <6 mm per patient. Statistical difference was not demonstrated, except for virtual colonoscopy in terms of the total number of polyps detected in comparison to optical colonoscopy. Conclusions Optical colonoscopy showed superior results in comparison to virtual colonoscopy while there was no statistical difference in comparison to colon capsule. Notwithstanding occasional difficulties, all three techniques were well tolerated. Hence, decisions concerning the use of each diagnostic method should be based on their availability, professional expertise, contraindications, and patient preferences.

Papillary fistulotomy vs conventional cannulation for endoscopic biliary access: A prospective randomized trial

AIM

To compare the cannulation success, biochemical profile, and complications of the papillary fistulotomy technique vs catheter and guidewire standard access.

METHODS

From July 2010 to May 2017, patients were prospectively randomized into two groups: Cannulation with a catheter and guidewire (Group I) and papillary fistulotomy (Group II). Amylase, lipase and C-reactive protein at T0, as well as 12 h and 24 h after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and complications (pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation) were recorded.

RESULTS

We included 102 patients (66 females and 36 males, mean age 59.11 ± 18.7 years). Group I and Group II had 51 patients each. The successful cannulation rates were 76.5% and 100%, respectively (P = 0.0002). Twelve patients (23.5%) in Group I had a difficult cannulation and underwent fistulotomy, which led to successful secondary biliary access (Failure Group). The complication rate was 13.7% (2 perforations and 5 mild pancreatitis) vs 2.0% (1 patient with perforation and pancreatitis) in Groups I and II, respectively (P = 0.0597).

CONCLUSION

Papillary fistulotomy was more effective than guidewire cannulation, and it was associated with a lower profile of amylase and lipase. Complications were similar in both groups.