Complication and local recurrence rate after endoscopic resection of large high-risk colorectal adenomas of ≥3 cm in size.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic resection is a widely used technique for treatment of large colorectal adenomas, but few data are available including only lesions larger than ≥2 cm. The aim of this study is to evaluate the complication and recurrence rate after endoscopic resection of high-risk colorectal adenomas ≥3 cm in size. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing polypectomy of large colorectal polyps of ≥3 cm. RESULTS: In 341 patients, 360 colorectal adenomas with a mean size of 3.9 cm were resected endoscopically. In 25 patients, a complication including 22 delayed bleedings (6.5%) and three perforations (0.9%) occurred. Single-variate analysis showed an increasing risk of complications for larger adenomas (3.9 vs. 4.6 cm; p ≤ 0.05). Two hundred twelve patients with 224 adenomas had undergone at least one documented follow-up endoscopy with a medium follow-up period of 16 months. In 95 resected lesions (42.4%), a residual adenoma occurred in the first follow-up colonoscopy (n = 88, 92.6%) or a recurrent adenoma occurred after at least one negative follow-up colonoscopy (n = 7, 7.4%). In multivariate analysis, risk factors were lesion size, sessile growth pattern, and the performing endoscopist. The complication and recurrence rate correlated inversely between endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the largest study showing complication and recurrence rates after colorectal polypectomy of advanced colorectal adenomas of ≥3 cm in size. Polyp size was identified as the most important risk factor for complications. For the first time, this study shows that the complication rate after colorectal polypectomy of large adenomas is correlated inversely with the residual and/or recurrence rate.

[EHEC-associated colon stenosis after ulcerous-chronic haemorrhagic colitis and consecutive resulting ileus]. / EHEC-assoziierte Kolonstenose nach ulzerös-chronisch hämorrhagischer Kolitis mit konsekutivem Ileus.

We report on the case of a segmentally emphasised, ulcerous chronic haemorrhagic colitis with the development of granulation tissue und scarred fibrosis with consecutive resulting stenosis of the colon. A 49-year-old male patient was infected with enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli bacteria during the EHEC-epidemic in northern Germany in early summer 2011. In the course of the infection the patient suffered from haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) with acute renal failure and neurological symptoms. Haemodialysis and plasmapheresis had become mandatory. A simultaneous ileus was estimated to be of paralytic origin. One month after treatment of the acute phase of the infection a CT scan of the abdomen was performed and discovered a symptomatic stenosis of the proximal colon transversum. This obstruction needed to be treated by performing a right hemicolectomy with an ileo-transverso anastomosis. After surgery the patient recovered continuously. The histopathological examination verified an ulcerous-chronic haemorrhagic colitis on the background of an EHEC infection.

[Deep sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic interventions: safety and reliability of a combination of midazolam and propofol]. / Tiefe Sedierung bei gastroenterologisch-endoskopischen Eingriffen: Sicherheit und Nutzen einer Kombination aus Midazolam und Propofol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Midazolam (M) is well known and established in endoscopic procedures for so-called conscious sedation. Propofol (P) is given during endoscopy for deep sedation. The combination of both (M/P) in endoscopic procedures is new. In this prospective study the safety of the combination was tested, in a second prospective study the combination M/P with Propofol alone was compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the first study 143 patients undergoing 150 endoscopic procedures (expected > 30 min) were included. Deep sedation was induced by an i.v. bolus of 2.5 mg midazolam, followed by small doses of propofol. The sedation was performed by a second physician experienced in intensive care. In the second prospective study 64 patients undergoing two necessary endoscopic procedures were included: one deep sedation with propofol alone, the second one with combination of midazolam bolus followed by propofol. RESULTS: It was demonstrated that induction of deep sedation by an i.v. bolus of 2.5 mg midazolam, followed by small doses of propofol is safe, without undesirable side effects, e.g. respiratory or circulation depression. Recovery time increased (4 to 8 minutes) with the combination M/P, costs decreased by saving 59% propofol per minute. This may be important for longer endoscopic procedures. CONCLUSION: The combination of M/P for deep sedation during endoscopy may be useful when long procedures are expected or patients are at risk with propofol alone.