Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on colonoscopy results - an overview.

<b>Aim:</b> Colorectal cancers are common cancers. Colonoscopy procedure, which is applied in the early diagnosis and treatment of this disease, has a very important role. In this study, we aimed to examine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic period on our colonoscopic procedures. </br></br> <b> Material and methods:</b> In this observational study, the data of the patients who underwent colonoscopy in our General Surgery Endoscopy Unit, between March 11, 2019 and March 12, 2021 were scanned retrospectively. Patients under 18 years of age were excluded. The patients were divided into 2 groups. 1. Group patients between 11 March 2019-11 March 2020; patients in the pre-COVID-19 period, Group 2, on March 12, 2020-March 12, 2021; Grouped as the COVID-19 era. </br></br> <b>Results:</b> Data of 8285 patients were analyzed. A total of 4889 patients in Group 1 and 3396 patients in Group 2 were included in the study. The detection of precancerous polyps between the groups was found to be significantly higher in group 1 (p < 0.05) (4.3% vs 2.1). Similarly, the presence of precancerous polyps over the age of 65 was found to be significantly higher in the pre-covid group. In group 1, no significant difference was found in the evaluation of cancer patients according to gender (p > 0.05) (F/M: 1.2%/1.6%). In group 2, cancer patients were found to be significantly higher in males. </br></br> <b>Conclusions:</b> The COVID-19 pandemic has had negative effects in many areas, as well as on our colonoscopic procedures. Experienced centers continue to work to minimize these negative effects.

Analysis of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy results during the Covid-19 pandemic. A high-volume single-Center experience.

PURPOSE: The histopathological effects of the COVID-19 period on the upper gastrointestinal system are not clearly known. This study is the first in the literature to compare the results of upper endoscopic biopsy before and during the COVID- 19 period. METHODS: Data of 10510 patients who underwent upper endoscopy with a given biopsy sample during the procedure between March 2019 and March 2021 were retrospectively scanned. Patients are divided into two groups as the prepandemic period patients and the COVID-19 pandemic period patients. The pathological data of these patients were statistically analyzed according to the Sydney classification. RESULTS: Group 1 comprised of 6,787 patients with 3,915 females and 2872 males (F:M=1.3:1), while Group 2 with 1,734 females and 1,455 males (F:M=1.2:1), and this gender difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.002). A comparison of the patient groups in terms of the inflammation, activation, intestinal metaplasia, and presence of H. pylori revealed a significant difference, with higher rates recorded in the COVID-19 period than in the pre-pandemic period (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In the pandemic period, the results of the upper endoscopic biopsy are adversely affected by various factors compared to the pre-pandemic period. KEY WORDS: Biopsy, COVID-19, Sydney classification, Upper endoscopy.

Incidentally Detected Gastrointestinal Wall Thickness on Abdominal Computed Tomography; What Does it Mean for Endoscopy?

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of gastrointestinal wall thickening (GWT) on abdominal computed tomography (CT) is not certain, yet. Despite the need for clinical guidelines describing the importance and evaluation of GWT on a CT scan, there have been few studies evaluating these incidental imaging abnormalities. The aim of this study is to endoscopically evaluate certain etiologies that cause incidental GWT found on CT. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was carried out with patients who had incidentally detected GWT on a CT scan at the Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital between February 2016 and December 2018. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients (62 males and 67 females; mean age 57.5 years, range: 26-87 years) were included in the study. Abnormalities observed during endoscopy at the exact site of the GWT noted on a CT image were found in 114 patients (99%): upper endoscopy revealed malignancy in 33 (29%), gastritis in 63 (52%), hiatal hernia in 19 (16%), a gastric ulcer in 7 (6%), and alkaline gastritis in 3 (2%). Colonoscopy revealed malignancy in 4 (33%), benign polyps in 5 (35%), colonic ulcer in 2 (16%), and 2 patients (16%) had normal findings. Malignancy was detected more frequently in the cardioesophageal region compared with the antrum (P=0.020). CONCLUSION: In this study, detection of GWT on CT often indicated pathologies which were subsequently confirmed endoscopically. Pathological findings were detected in 83% of these patients, with approximately 30% determined to be malignant. Endoscopic evaluation is recommended when GWT is reported on a CT scan.

The diagnostic role of hemogram parameters in pregnant appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is the most frequently encountered non-obstetric disease requiring surgical intervention during pregnancy. Early diagnosis reduces maternal and fetal morbidity / mortality rates. AIM: This study aims to investigate hemogram parameters in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective case-controlled study was conducted in three groups. Thirty-nine pregnant patients with acute appendicitis (Group A), 39 fertile nonpregnant patients with acute appendicitis (Group B), and 39 healthy pregnant women (Group C) were included in the study. WBC, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, NLR, PLR, MPV and RDW values were compared. RESULTS: The mean NLR values in group A, group B and group C were 7.39 (1.58-46.6), 5.66 (1-20) and 4.23 (1.54-10.77) respectively, and there was a significant difference in NLR values between the groups (P= 0.002). The mean PLR values in group A, group B and group C were 159.09 (69.1-574), 134.28 (21.5-360) and 120 (68.7-334) and difference was statistically significant (P= 0.019). Cutoff points for WBC count was 14155 106/µL (51,3% sensitivity, 82,1% specificity), for neutrophil count is 10955 106/µL (53,8% sensitivity, 84,6% specificity), for NLR is 9.23 (46,2% sensitivity, 92,3% specificity) and PLR is 157,6 (51,3% sensitivity and 82,1% specificity) NLR had largest area under the curve with 0.667 NLR. CONCLUSION: Neutrophil count, WBC and PLR were found to be the most valuable inflammatory parameters however, RDW, Lymphocyte count, and MPV levels are not found valuable markers in terms of sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant patients by this study.

Different approaches in diagnosis, follow-up and treatment of acute biliary pancreatitis: Results of attitude survey.

BACKGROUND: Acute biliary pancreatitis is one of the most frequently encountered diseases among general surgeons in emergency surgical diseases. Differences in diagnosis and treatment management of these patients, varying from physician to physician, are common in clinical practice. We aimed to present these differences and discuss the results in the light of current guidelines in the literature. METHODS: In this study, 21 questions were prepared regarding the physicians' approach in the diagnosis, follow-up and treatment of acute biliary pancreatitis (Appendix).The questionnaires were completed by face to face interviews with 94 general surgery specialists at the 20th National Surgery Congress. RESULTS: In this study, 38 (40%) of the physicians who answered the questionnaire were working in the Training and Research Hospital, 27 (29%) in the State Hospital, 19 (20%) in the University Hospital and nine in private health care was working in the establishment. 85% of the physicians were general surgery specialists with 10 years of experience. 53% (50) of the surgeons reported that they had less than five cases of acute biliary pancreatitis each month, and 35% (34) stated that they wanted amylase value daily for follow-up. Ultrasonography and computed tomography were the most commonly used imaging modalities and 15% of the respondents indicated that each patient underwent magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. 45% of surgeons stated that antibiotics were started at the time of diagnosis of pancreatitis. The percentage of surgeons who did not undergo cholecystectomy early in patients with mild to moderate pancreatitis was 60%. The reason for not preferring surgery in the early period was the most frequent operation difficulty with 40% and not supporting the operation in the early period. CONCLUSION: According to the attitude survey results, there are differences between general surgery specialists in the diagnosis, follow-up and treatment of acute biliary pancreatitis.