Interval colonoscopy following acute diverticulitis should not be discouraged yet: results from a retrospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although included in some guidelines, the recommendation of interval colonoscopy after an acute diverticulitis (AD) episode has recently been questioned. In this study, we evaluated the incidence of colon cancer during the follow-up of an episode of AD. METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out of patients with conservatively treated AD at our Institution (January 2011 to December 2018) with or without endoscopic study. Patients who had no colonoscopy performed were followed for two years. The demographic, clinical, radiological, follow-up and anatomopathological records were analysed. We determined CT scan validity for the differential diagnosis of CC and AD; sensibility, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated. Patients lost to follow-up and patients who had had colonoscopy in the previous three years were excluded. RESULTS: This study included 285 patients with a mean age of 59 years. A total of 225 interval colonoscopies were performed and 60 patients without colonoscopy were followed up. There were 19 CC (6.7%) diagnosed, 14 with interval colonoscopy and 5 during follow-up; 8 (42.1%) happened in patients who had had an episode of uncomplicated AD. Although CT scan accuracy is high, 87.7%, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low, 4.67 and 0.64, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interval colonoscopy should still be advisable after an episode of AD. The rationale for this statement is based on a non-negligible rate of hidden CC and an important uncertainty in the differential diagnosis.

Portal pneumatosis in a patient with severe Salmonella colitis.

A 65-year-old patient with a history of ischemic stroke, residual ophthalmoparesis, positive fecal occult blood screening and pending colonoscopy attended the Emergency Room due to three days with pain, abdominal distension and diarrhea. In the Emergency Room, he presented diffuse abdominal pain, hemodynamic instability with acute renal failure and metabolic acidosis, with severe elevation of acute phase reactants. Abdominal fluid resuscitation and computed tomography (CT) were performed, which reported a dilatation of the loops of the small intestine to the distal ileum with thickening of the wall of the right colon and gas, dissecting intrahepatic portal branches and splanchnic veins.

"Optimal recovery" after colon cancer surgery in the elderly, a comparative cohort study: Conventional care vs. enhanced recovery vs. prehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer in elderly patients is an increasing problem due to its prevalence and progressive aging population. Prehabilitation has experienced a great grown in this field. Whether it is the best standard of care for these patients has not been elucidated yet. METHODS: A retrospective comparative cohort study of three different standards of care for elderly colon cancer patients (>65 years) was conducted. A four-weeks trimodal prehabilitation program (PP), enhanced recovery program (ERP) and conventional care (CC) were compared. Global complications, major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), reinterventions, mortality, readmission and length of stay were measured. Optimal recovery, defined as postoperative course without major complications, no mortality, hospital discharge before the fifth postoperative day and without readmission, was the primary outcome measure. The influence of standard of care in optimal recovery and postoperative outcomes was assessed with univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were included, 51 in each group. Mean age was 77.9 years. ASA Score distribution was different between groups (ASA III-IV: CC 56.9%, ERP 25.5%, PP 58.9%; p = 0.014). Optimal recovery rate was 55.6% (PP 54.9%, ERP 66.7%, CC 45.1%; p = 0.09). No differences were found in major complications (p = 0.2) nor reinterventions (p = 0.7). Uneventful recovery favors ERP and PP groups (p = 0.046 and p = 0.049 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PP and ERP are safe and effective for older colon cancer patients. Fewer overall complications and readmissions happened in ERP and PP patients. Major complications were independent of the standard of care used.