Drain-site recurrence of an ileocaecal valve adenocarcinoma.

Drain-site recurrence following colorectal cancer resection is a rare event and is described in few case reports. The majority of these reports are following minimally invasive surgery. This report describes a case of an isolated drain-site recurrence of primary colorectal cancer in a male patient in his 50s. He previously underwent an open right hemicolectomy and segmental small bowel resection for an obstructing ileocaecal valve adenocarcinoma. This was followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Two years into surveillance, a redo ileocolic resection was performed for an anastomotic recurrence. While undergoing surveillance imaging, a new deposit was detected at a right-sided surgical drain site. Subsequently, a full thickness en bloc resection was performed. To date, the postoperative course has been uneventful. This case describes a drain-site recurrence from a colorectal primary.

Underwater cap-suction pseudopolyp formation for endoscopic mucosal resection: a simple technique for treating flat, appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the safety and technical success of an easy-to-use technique that applies underwater cap suction pseudopolyp formation to facilitate the resection of flat lesions or those at the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a register of consecutive cap suction underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (CAP-UEMR) procedures performed at two centers between September 2020 and December 2021. Procedures were performed using a cone-shaped cap, extending 7 mm from the endoscope tip, to suction the lesion while submerged underwater, followed by underwater snare resection. Our primary end point was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete resection. RESULTS: We treated 83 lesions (median size 20 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 15-30 mm) with CAP-UEMR: 64 depressed or flat lesions (18 previously manipulated, 9 with difficult access), 11 from the appendix, and 8 from the ileocecal valve. Technical success was 100 %. There were seven intraprocedural bleedings and two delayed bleedings, all managed endoscopically. No perforations or other complications occurred. Among the 64 lesions with follow-up colonoscopy, only one recurrence was detected, which was treated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: CAP-UEMR was a safe and effective technique for removing nonpolypoid colorectal lesions, including those arising from the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve.

Are large ileocecal valve lesions amenable with advanced endoscopic management to avoid bowel resection?

INTRODUCTION: Mucosal lesions located at the ileocecal valve may be challenging for endoscopic intervention because of angulated anatomy and a thinner wall with narrower lumen when compared to other locations of the bowel. This study aimed to evaluate the management and outcomes of ileocecal valve lesions treated endoscopically. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with mucosal neoplasms involving the ileocecal valve managed with advanced endoscopy at a quaternary care hospital between 2011 and 2021 were included from a prospectively collected database. Patient demographics, lesion characteristics, complications, and outcomes are reported. RESULTS: From 1005 lesions, 80 patients (8%) underwent resection for neoplasms involving ileocecal valve by ESD (n = 38), hybrid ESD (n = 38), EMR (n = 2), and CELS (n = 2). The median age of the study group was 63(37-84) years, and 50% of patients were female. The median lesion size was 34 mm (5-75). The mean procedure time was 66 ± 44 min(range:18-200). The dissection was completed as piecemeal in 41(51%) patients and 35(44%) had en-bloc dissection. Seven(8%) endoscopic interventions required conversion to laparoscopic surgery due to inability to lift the mucosa(n = 4) and perforation(n = 3). No immediate bleeding occurred in the study group. Five patients had late rectal bleeding and two were admitted with post-polypectomy pain within 30 days of intervention. Pathology revealed 4(5%) adenocarcinomas, 33(41.2%) tubular adenomas, 30(37.8%) tubulovillous adenomas, and 5(6.2%) sessile serrated adenomas. Sixty-seven (84.5%) patients completed at least one follow-up colonoscopy and were followed for a median of 11(0-64) months. Six (8.9%) patients had recurrence and were managed with subsequent endoscopic removal. CONCLUSION: Advanced endoscopy can be safely and effectively performed for the management of ileocecal valve polyps with low complication and acceptable recurrence rates. Advanced endoscopy promises an alternative approach to oncologic ileocecal resection while attaining organ preservation. Our study demonstrates the impact of advanced endoscopy for the treatment of mucosal neoplasms involving ileocecal valve.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for tumors involving the ileocecal valve with extension into the terminal ileum: a multicenter study from the Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for tumors extending into the terminal ileum remain obscure. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESD for tumors involving the ileocecal valve (ICV) with extension into the terminal ileum. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients (40 men; mean age, 67 years) with 68 tumors involving the ICV that were resected by ESD between December 2013 and December 2018 were included and classified into Group A (21 tumors with extension into the terminal ileum) and Group B (47 tumors without extension). ESD outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: The clinical features of the patients and tumors were not significantly different between the groups. There were no significant differences in en bloc resection rate (95% and 94%, respectively; p = 0.79), R0 resection rate (90% and 89%, respectively; p = 0.89), procedure time (95 ± 54 min and 94 ± 69 min, respectively; p = 0.64), postoperative bleeding rate (5% and 3%, respectively; p = 0.79), intraoperative perforation rate (0% and 4%, respectively; p = 0.34), delayed perforation rate (0% and 0%, respectively), or postoperative symptomatic stenosis rate (0% and 0%, respectively) between Groups A and B. No specific factors related to the outcomes of ESD were found by subgroup analysis according to the dominance and degree of circumference of the ICV. Local recurrence was observed in 1 patient in Group A who was retreated using ESD. CONCLUSIONS: ESD for tumors involving the ICV with extension into the terminal ileum is safe and effective.

Ileocecal duplication in children: a single-center experience of 115 cases.

To evaluate the clinical features, surgical management, and prognosis of ileocecal duplication in children. A total of 115 patients diagnosed with ileocecal duplication at Beijing Children's Hospital between January 2010 and June 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Ileocecal duplications were divided into ileal intraluminal (n = 41), ileal extraluminal (n = 24), ileocecal valve (n = 11), cecal intraluminal (n = 18), and cecal extraluminal (n = 3) types according to their locations. Median age at diagnosis was 9.5 (0.1-169.2) months. Intussusception was only observed preoperatively in patients with the ileal intraluminal (8/41), ileocecal valve (4/11), and cecal intraluminal (7/18) types (P = 0.004). Ileocecal resection and ileocolostomy and cyst excision without ileocecal resection were performed in 41 (35.7%) and 74 (64.3%) patients, respectively. The proportions of cyst excision without ileocecal resection performed in patients with different types were 78.0% (32/41), 91.7% (22/24), 27.3% (3/11), 27.8% (5/18), and 100.0% (3/3) (P < 0.001). Time of oral intake (P = 0.003) and hospital stay after surgery (P < 0.001) were significantly shorter in patients undergoing cyst excision without ileocecal resection. There were no significant differences in the complications, growth, and stool frequency (older than 4 years) between patients undergoing different surgical procedures. Regarding the stool consistency (older than 4 years), there was a lower proportion of dry stool in patients undergoing cyst excision (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Ileocecal duplications at specific locations are prone to intussusception and can influence the surgical procedure choice. At mid-term follow-up, the children's growth and defecation patterns do not seem to be affected by ileocecal resection. WHAT IS KNOWN: • How to address ileocecal duplication has always been challenging in clinical management. • Children who have an ileocecal resection can develop some early postoperative complications. WHAT IS NEW: • Ileocecal duplications at specific locations are prone to intussusception and can influence the surgical procedure choice. • Children's growth and defecation patterns do not seem to be affected by ileocecal resection.

Feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for cecal tumors involving the ileocecal valve or appendiceal orifice.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic resection of the ileocecal valve lesions (ICVL) and peri-appendiceal orifice lesions (PAOL), is challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ICVLs and PAOLs compared with other cecal lesions (OCEL). METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted at a cancer center hospital and two community hospitals. Non-pedunculated cecal lesions that were intended to be treated by ESD followed by at least one surveillance colonoscopy were included. The main outcome was curative resection defined as en-bloc resection and R0 resection without risk factors of metastases. The secondary outcome was co lon preservation. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients with 206 cecal lesions, including 37 ICVL, 27 PAOL, and 142 OCEL, who were to be treated with ESD were included in this study. Curative resection rates were 75.7% for ICVL, 70.4% for PAOL, and 77.5% for OCEL (P = 0.67). In the multivariate analysis of predictors of curative resection, tumor size (<40 mm) (odds ratio [OR] 2.40; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.14-5.04; P = 0.02) and a negative non-lifting sign (OR 6.12; 95% CI, 2.55-14.60; P < 0.01) were significant. Colon preservation was achieved for 91.9% of the ICVL, 92.6% of the PAOL, and 90.8% of the OCEL (P = 0.947). CONCLUSIONS: Based on curative resection and colon preservation rates, ESD was found to be feasible for ICVL and PAOL. Large tumor size (≥ 40 mm) and positive non-lifting signs were significant factors for non-curative resection.

Anastomosis near to the ileocecal valve in neonates with focal intestinal perforation, is it safe.

BACKGROUND: Anastomosis near the ileocecal valve (ICV) are controversial due to the increased pressure on the suture; in this situation, the valve could be removed at a first stage or at the moment of stoma closure. However, preservation of the ICV has proved important benefits in the long term. The aim of this study is to evaluate its feasibility in neonates with focal intestinal perforation (FIP). METHODS: Retrospective study (2010-2019) of neonates with FIP who underwent intestinal resection and primary anastomosis. Patients were divided into group A (anastomosis less than 5 cm from ICV) and group B (more than 5 cm). RESULTS: Forty patients were treated. Patients ostomized or with resection of ICV were excluded. Finally, 24 patients (birth weight 1043 ± 594 g (520-3000), age 8.8 ± 7.8 days (2-39)) were included for analysis. Patent ductus arteriosus was present in 75%. There were 6 patients in group A (25%) and 18 in group B (75%). Groups were comparable in terms of gestational age, birth weight, and age at the time of surgery (p > .05). There were no cases of dehiscence nor stenosis of the anastomosis. There were no differences in reoperation rate, infectious complications, time to enteral feeding, days of parenteral nutrition, hospital stay nor survival (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Ileo-ileal anastomosis closer to the ileocecal junction, in neonates with focal intestinal perforation, is an effective and safe option which also allows the preservation of the ICV avoiding the complications derived from its absence in a group of patients with high morbidity.

Minimally invasive ileocecal valve resection in ileocecal Crohn's disease.

AIM: Considering ileocolic resection as a surgical standard for the treatment of ileocecal valve Crohn's disease, we propose a limited resection of the terminal ileum and ileocecal valve with ileocecal anastomosis. MATERIAL OF STUDY: Three patiens between 20 and 37 years of age, diagnosed with Crohn's disease unresponsive to medical therapy, who have stenoses or fissures confined to the terminal ileum and ileocecal valve, seen during instrumental investigations. RESULTS: The proposed procedure allowed us to perform a minimal resection and reconstruction of a new ileocecal valve. Once the symptoms have resolved, at endoscopic follow ups, at 6 and 12 months after surgery, there were no changes in the mucosa of the ileocecal neo-anastomosis. DISCUSSION: Since Crohn's disease is a systemic disease with a chronic relapsing course complicated by a high rate of post-surgical relapses, it is essential to limit the extension of resections to the macroscopically involved tissues and reduce the anastomotic surfaces. The proposed surgical procedure allows to preserve the caecum and the colon with an optimal postoperative course. CONCLUSION: We believe that, with specific clinical and endoscopic conditions, the treatment we illustrated can be proposed to other patients as an alternative to the standard VL ileocolic resection. KEY WORDS: Crohn's Disease, Ileocaecal Valve, Ileocaecal Anastomosis.

Comparison of long-term outcome according to involved aganglionic segments of total colonic aganglionosis.

ABSTRACT: Total colonic aganglionosis (TCA) is a rare form of Hirschsprung disease, with more severe symptoms than rectosigmoid Hirschsprung disease. We aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes according to the involved segments of TCA.Patients with aganglionosis extending from the anus to at least the ileocecal valve were included. The medical records of 33 TCA patients from 1981 to 2014 were reviewed. Three groups were analyzed based on the involved segment (jejunum, jejunoileal junction, and distal ileum).The median age at the pull-through operation was 6.2 (3.3-114) months. The median follow-up duration was 216 (21-411) months. Transition zone in the jejunum, jejunoileal junction, and distal ileum was identified in 3, 5, and 25 patients, respectively. The most common method of operation was Duhamel pull-through. Perianal excoriation and enterocolitis were the most common postoperative complications. The complication rates were 45% to 51% and not different among the groups. The defecation frequency normalized 3 years postoperatively, and body weight started to recover after 2 years irrespective of the involved segment.Therefore, close monitoring with proper management of defecation and body weight for at least 2 to 3 years postoperatively is required.

Ileocecal Valve Sparing Resection for the Treatment of Benign Cecal Polyps Unsuitable for Polypectomy.

BACKGROUND: Not all benign-appearance polyps are amenable to endoscopic removal and colectomy is required in some cases. This study aims to compare the early outcomes of cecal wedge resection with ileocecal valve sparring versus standard right colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps referred for surgery. METHODS: From Apr 2010 to Aug 2019, all consecutive patients who underwent cecal wedge resection or right colectomy in ten European centers for a presumed endoscopically benign polyp unsuitable for endoscopic resection were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was morbidity. Secondary endpoints were operative time and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: One hundred and ten patients were included: 25 patients underwent cecal wedge resection and 85 a right colectomy. There were 56 men (51%) and 90% of the procedures were performed laparoscopically. 29 lesions were located at the appendix orifice (26.4%). Mortality was nil. There were no significant differences between both procedures for morbidity rate (20% versus 24.7%) or reoperation (4% versus 4.7%). Cecal wedge was related to shorter operative time (63 min versus 150 min, P = .008) and shorter hospital stay (5 days versus 6 days, P = .049). Only 1 patient had a salvage right colectomy after cecal wedge for a pTis adenoma. CONCLUSIONS: For benign-appearance cecal polyps unsuitable for endoscopic ablation, cecal wedge resection is safe and should be considered as an attractive alternative to right colectomy.