RESUMEN
Colorectal anastomotic strictures are a well-known complication of low anterior resection. Depending on their location, strictures are amendable to different forms of endoscopic intervention. However, all endoscopic interventions are contingent on passing a guidewire across the anastomotic stricture. We present the case of a patient with a complete anastomotic stricture that could not be traversed by conventional endoscopy and the unique method by which a lumen was created in the anastomotic strictures that allowed for a guidewire to be passed across.
RESUMEN
GOALS: The goal of this study was to develop an objective and detailed scoring system to assess the quality of bowel preparation. BACKGROUND: The quality of bowel preparation impacts the success of the colonoscopy. We developed and compared a new bowel preparation scoring system, the New Jersey Bowel Preparation Scale (NJBPS), with existing systems that are limited by a lack of detail and objectivity in the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS). METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, dual-observer study performed at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School University Hospital. Patients who were at medium risk for colorectal cancer and undergoing outpatient screening colonoscopy were enrolled in the study, and their bowel preparation was assessed separately by an attending and a fellow using each of the bowel preparation scoring systems. RESULTS: 98 patients were analyzed in the study, of which 59% were female. Most of the patient population was African American (65%) or Hispanic (25%). The average age of the patient was 60 years. Chi-squared analysis using SPSS software revealed intraclass correlation coefficient values between attending and fellow scores for each scale. The NJBPS had the highest value at 0.988, while the BBPS and OBPS had values of 0.883 and 0.894. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: The NJBPS and BBPS scores demonstrated a statistically significant agreement with each other. Overall, there was good interobserver agreement for all three scoring systems when comparing attendings to fellows for the same scoring system. However, the NJBPS possessed a stronger correlation.
RESUMEN
GOALS: Our aim was to identify and compare the effectiveness of antitumor necrosis factor biologics when used as initial agents and when used in succession for the treatment of moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD). BACKGROUND: Studies directly comparing the efficacy of biologics are lacking. When one biologic loses efficacy, patients are often treated with an alternate biologic. The effectiveness of this strategy has not been thoroughly investigated. STUDY: This is a retrospective cohort study from a database of 153 patients with CD treated with infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab pegol. Response rates determined by physician global assessment were compared between biologics when given as initial agents and after failure of 1 or 2 prior biologics. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in response between infliximab (64.5%), adalimumab (60.0%), and certolizumab pegol (66.7%) when given as initial biologics. As second-line or third-line agents after prior biologic failure, there was a trend toward increased response with infliximab (83.3%) versus adalimumab (52.7%) and certolizumab pegol (59.4%); however, this did not meet statistical significance. After failure or loss of response of 2 previous biologics, use of a third biologic was still effective with a response rate of 54.2%. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 biologics have similar efficacy in the treatment of CD when given as initial agents. Infliximab has a trend toward increased response after prior biologic failure; however, this did not meet statistical significance. Even after loss of response or failure of 2 previous biologics, trial of a third alternate biologic is an effective strategy.
