RESUMEN
Secukinumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin-17A. It is currently prescribed for the treatment of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, which are immune-mediated diseases that show significant co-heritability with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Although this treatment appears to be well tolerated by patients, several cases of new-onset IBD after secukinumab have been reported during the last years.
Asunto(s)
Artritis Psoriásica , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino , Psoriasis , Espondilitis Anquilosante , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/efectos adversos , Artritis Psoriásica/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedad Crónica , Humanos , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/tratamiento farmacológico , Psoriasis/tratamiento farmacológico , Espondilitis Anquilosante/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most important marker of colonoscopy quality. Devices to improve adenoma detection have been developed, such as the Endocuff and transparent cap.âThe aim of the current study was to examine whether there was a difference in ADR between Endocuff-assisted (EAC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC). METHODS: A randomized prospective trial was conducted. Eligible patients included adults ≥â18 years referred because of symptoms, surveillance, or colonoscopies as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). The primary outcome measure was ADR. Secondary outcomes included mean number of adenomas, mean number of polyps, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and time to cecal intubation. Procedural measures, device removal rate, and adverse events were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 711 patients (51.1â% men; median age 63 years) were included, of whom 357 patients were randomized to EAC and 354 patients to CAC. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ADR was similar in both groups: EAC 50.4â% (95â% confidence interval [CI] 45.1â-â55.7) vs. CAC 50.6â% (95â%CI 45.2â-â55.9). Similar results were obtained in the per-protocol analysis: EAC 51.6â% (95â%CI 46.2â-â57) vs. CAC 51.4â% (95â%CI 46â-â56.8). There were no differences between the two devices in ADR according to the mean number of adenomas and polyps per procedure, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and time to cecal intubation. Device removal rate and adverse events were also similar. CONCLUSION: In this randomized study, no differences in ADR were found between Endocuff- and cap-assisted colonoscopy.
Asunto(s)
Adenoma/diagnóstico por imagen , Pólipos del Colon/diagnóstico por imagen , Colonoscopía/métodos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico por imagen , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Colonoscopios , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The use of the endoscope for the calibration of the gastric sleeve, instead of the standard use of the bougie, is a safe procedure and gives the surgeon a higher sense of security. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the use of endoscopic guidance on postoperative complications and mid-term results of the bariatric procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized study was performed at the General University Hospital of Elche (Alicante, Spain) between 2010 and 2013. The patients were divided into the bougie calibration group and the endoscopic calibration group. The decision of which method to use depended on the availability of an endoscopist at the time of the surgery. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in the study, 44 females (88%) and 6 males (12%), with a mean age of 43.3 years and a preoperative mean body mass index of 50.6 kg/m(2). In the endoscopic calibration group, a bleeding point in the staple line was detected and sclerosed with adrenaline in 1 patient. In the bougie calibration group there were no cases of postoperative digestive bleeding. The intraoperative tightness check with blue dye and air insufflation through an orogastric tube in the bougie calibration group was negative in all the patients. In the endoscopic calibration group the check with blue dye was also negative in all cases, but the second test with air detected the exit of air bubbles in 1 case. There were no significant differences in the operation time between groups. A significant reduction in the major complications rate was observed in the endoscopic calibration group (odds ratio=0.9; P=.034). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic calibration is associated with lower postoperative complications after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.