Trauma to the solid abdominal organs: The missed dark box of colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy is an integral part of the lower bowel care and is generally considered a potentially safe diagnostic and therapeutic procedure performed as a daycare outpatient procedure. Colonoscopy is associated with different complications that are not limited to adverse events related to the bowel preparation solutions used, the sedatives used, but to the procedure related as well including bleeding and perforation. Injuries to the extra-luminal abdominal organs during colonoscopy are uncommon, however, serious complications related to the procedure have been reported infrequently in the literature. Life threatening injuries to the spleen, liver, pancreas, mesentery, and urinary bladder have been reported as early as in mid-1970s. These injuries should not be overlooked by clinicians and endoscopists. Steadily increasing abdominal pain, abdominal distension, and hemodynamic instability in absence of rectal bleeding should raise the possibility of severe organ injury. Splenic and hepatic injury following colonoscopy are usually serious and may be life threatening. Although conservative management may help, yet they usually need interventional radiology or surgical intervention. Acute pancreatitis following colonoscopy is usually mild and is mostly managed conservatively. The mechanism of abdominal organ injuries during colonoscopy is not fully understood, however many risk factors have been identified, which can be classified as- organ related, procedure related, and local abdominal factors. Difficult colonoscopy and prior intra-abdominal adhesions are probably the most relevant risk factors for these injuries. Left lateral position, avoidance of looping and excessive force during the procedure would probably reduce the risk of such injuries.

Different patterns of esophageal motility disorders among patients with dysphagia and normal endoscopy: A 2-center experience.

Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) are the main etiology of nonobstructive dysphagia (NOD), but they are underestimated in Egypt. High-resolution manometry (HRM) with Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CC v3.0) is the current gold standard diagnostic modality to assess EMD in patients with NOD. In this HRM-based study, we aimed to classify EMD among Egyptian patients and explore the relationship between the severity of symptoms and the various groups of EMD. From January 2020 to January 2021, patients with dysphagia were subjected to diagnostic workup, which included symptom questionnaire for Eckardt score, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, barium esophagogram, and HRM. All patients were categorized based on the HRM results using CC version 3.0 after exclusion of those with obstructive esophageal lesions. Of 252 patients with dysphagia, 55 patients with NOD were analyzed according to CC version 3.0. Achalasia was diagnosed in 31 patients (56.4%) (type I: 18 [58.06%]; type II: 9 [29.03%], and type III: 4 [12.9%]), 3 patients (5.5%) with esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, 2 patients (3.6%) with absent contractility, 4 patients (7.3%) with distal esophageal spasm, 7 patients (12.7%) with ineffective esophageal motility, and 8 patients (14.5%) with normal manometry. Patients with achalasia experienced significantly high regurgitation (96.8% vs 70.8%; P = .016) compared with those without achalasia. Achalasia was the most common EMD in Egyptian patients with NOD. Eckardt score was higher in patients with outflow obstruction and major motor disorder, but it could not differentiate different categories of CC of EMD. HRM is effective in characterization of EMD.