Prótesis de colon vs. resección quirúrgica del tumor primario. Efecto en la supervivencia del cáncer de colon obstructivo estadio IV / No disponible

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: el impacto de la resección quirúrgica del tumor primario en la supervivencia del cáncer colorrectal metastático obstructivo es aún controvertido. El objetivo principal de este estudio ha sido analizar la supervivencia de pacientes con cáncer colorrectal metastático obstructivo tras tratamiento con cirugía resectiva o con prótesis de colon. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: estudio retrospectivo de todos los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal estadio IV con clínica obstructiva diagnosticados entre 2005 y 2012 y tratados con cirugía resectiva o prótesis de colon. Se han excluido casos con perforación, absceso, neoplasia en colon derecho o recto distal, neoplasia colorrectal múltiple y cirugía derivativa. RESULTADOS: se incluyeron 95 pacientes, 49 tratados con cirugía resectiva y 46 con prótesis de colon. El grupo tratado con prótesis presentó mayor índice de Charlson (9,5 ± 2,1 vs. 8,6 ± 1,5, p = 0,01), menor tiempo para la ingesta oral (0,9 ± 1,1 vs. 16,4 ± 53,5 días, p = 0,05), menor estancia hospitalaria (4 ± 4,8 vs. 16,7 ± 15,5 días, p = 0,0001), menor necesidad de estoma (11,1 % vs. 32,7 %, p = 0,01), menos complicaciones precoces (4,3 % vs. 46,9 %, p = 0,0001) y más complicaciones tardías (33,3 % vs. 6,4 %, p = 0,001). Recibir quimioterapia (p = 0,008) fue el único factor independiente de mayor supervivencia. En el subgrupo de pacientes tratados con quimioterapia la resección quirúrgica del tumor primario fue un factor independiente de mayor supervivencia. CONCLUSIÓN: en los pacientes diagnosticados de cáncer colorrectal obstructivo estadio IV, ambos tratamientos son eficaces en la resolución del cuadro obstructivo. La cirugía resectiva no impacta de forma positiva en la supervivencia y no puede ser recomendada como terapia de elección

No disponible

Colonic stent vs surgical resection of the primary tumor. Effect on survival from stage-IV obstructive colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: the impact of surgical primary tumor resection on survival of obstructive metastatic colorectal cancer remains controversial. The primary goal of this study was to analyze survival in patients with obstructive metastatic colorectal cancer after treatment with either resection surgery or a colonic stent. MATERIAL AND METHODS: a prospective study was performed of all patients with stage-IV colorectal cancer and obstructive manifestations, diagnosed from 2005 to 2012 and managed with either resection surgery or a colonic stent. Cases with a perforation, abscess, right colon or distal rectal malignancy, multiple colorectal cancer or derivative surgery were excluded. RESULTS: a total of 95 patients were included, 49 were managed with resection surgery and 46 with a colonic stent. The colonic stent group had a higher Charlson index (9.5 ± 2.1 vs 8.6 ± 1.5, p = 0.01), a shorter time to oral intake (0.9 ± 1.1 vs 16.4 ± 53.5 days, p = 0.05), a shorter hospital stay (4 ± 4.8 vs 16.7 ± 15.5 days, p = 0.0001), less need for stomata (11.1 % vs 32.7 %, p = 0.01), fewer early complications (4.3 % vs 46.9 %, p = 0.0001) and more late complications (33.3 % vs 6.4 %, p = 0.001). Undergoing chemotherapy (p = 0.008) was the only independent factor related to increased survival. In the subgroup of patients managed with chemotherapy, surgical primary tumor resection was an independent factor associated with increased survival. CONCLUSION: both treatments are effective for resolving obstructive manifestations in patients diagnosed with stage-IV obstructive colorectal cancer. Resection surgery has no positive impact on survival and thus cannot be recommended as a therapy of choice.

Narrow band imaging and white light endoscopy in the characterization of a polypectomy scar: A single-blind observational study.

AIM: To assess the incremental benefit of narrow band imaging (NBI) and white light endoscopy (WLE), randomizing the initial technique for the detection of residual neoplasia at the polypectomy scar after an endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR). METHODS: We conducted an observational study in an academic center to assess the incremental benefit of NBI and WLE randomly applied 1:1 (NBI-WLE or WLE-NBI) in the follow-up of a post-EPMR scar by the same endoscopist. RESULTS: A total of 112 EPMR scars were included. The median baseline polyp size was 20 mm (interquartile range: 14-30). At first review, NBI and WLE showed good sensitivity (85.0% vs 78.9%), specificity (77.1% vs 84.2%) and overall accuracy (80.0% vs 82.5%). NBI after WLE (WLE-NBI group) improved accuracy, but this difference was not statistically significant [area under the curve (AUC): 86.8% vs 81.6%, P = 0.15]. WLE after NBI (NBI-WLE group) did not improve accuracy (AUC: 81.4% vs 81.1%, P = 0.9). Overall, recurrence was found in 39/112 (34.8%) lesions. CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant differences were found between the two techniques at the first post-EPMR assessment, the use of NBI after WLE may improve residual neoplasia detection. Nevertheless, biopsy is still required in the first scar review.

Routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for radiographically confirmed acute diverticulitis. In whom and when is it indicated? / Endoscopia digestiva baja de rutina en la diverticulitis aguda confirmada radiológicamente. ¿En quién y cuándo está indicada?

Introduction: international guidelines recommend a routine colonoscopy to rule out advanced neoplasm after an acute diverticulitis event. However, in recent years, this recommendation has been called into question following the advent of computerized tomography (CT), particularly with regard to uncomplicated diverticulitis. Furthermore, colonoscopy is associated with a risk and additional costs. Objective: to understand the diagnostic yield, quality and safety of colonoscopy in the setting of acute diverticulitis. Methods: this was a retrospective study of all patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis via CT between 2005 and 2013, who subsequently underwent a colonoscopy. Results: two hundred and sixteen patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis via CT were enrolled. These included 58 cases with complicated diverticulitis (27%) and 158 with uncomplicated diverticulitis (73%). An advanced neoplasm was found in 12 patients (5.6%); 11.7% were complicated and 3.2% were uncomplicated (p = 0.02). No major complications were identified. The quality was low but improved over time; the complete procedure rate was 88%, an effective preparation was achieved in 75% and excision of polyps < 2 cm was performed in 78% of cases. The optimum colonoscopy quality cu-off was 9.5 weeks. Conclusion: routine colonoscopy is advisable after a complicated diverticulitis event but its recommendation is unclear with regard to uncomplicated episodes. Colonoscopy is safe even when performed early. The overall quality is low but may be optimized via a subsequent endoscopy, two months after a diverticulitis diagnosis

Introducción: las guías internacionales recomiendan la colonoscopia de rutina tras un episodio de diverticulitis aguda para descartar la presencia de neoplasia avanzada. Sin embargo, tras la incorporación en los últimos años de la tomografía axial computarizada dicha recomendación ha quedado en entredicho, sobre todo en lo que se refiere a la diverticulitis no complicada. Por otro lado, la colonoscopia es una técnica que comporta riesgos y costes adicionales. Objetivo: conocer la rentabilidad diagnóstica, calidad y seguridad de la colonoscopia en la diverticulitis aguda. Métodos: estudio retrospectivo de todos los pacientes diagnosticados de diverticulitis aguda por tomografía computarizada (TC) entre los años 2005 y 2013, a los que posteriormente se les realizó una colonoscopia. Resultados: doscientos dieciséis pacientes diagnosticados de diverticulitis aguda por TC (58 diverticulitis complicada [27%] y 158 diverticulitis no complicada [73%]) fueron incluidos. Se detectó neoplasia avanzada en 12 pacientes (5,6% [complicada/no complicada 11,7/3,2%, p = 0,02]). No se observaron complicaciones mayores. La calidad fue baja (completa: 88%; preparación eficaz: 75%; resección de pólipos < 2 cm: 78%), si bien mejoró con el paso del tiempo, siendo las 9,5 semanas el punto de corte óptimo de calidad para realizar la colonoscopia. Conclusión: es aconsejable la realización de una colonoscopia de rutina tras un episodio de diverticulitis complicada, pero la recomendación no es clara en la no complicada. La colonoscopia es segura incluso realizada de forma precoz. La calidad es globalmente baja pero podría optimizarse realizando la endoscopia posteriormente a los dos meses del diagnóstico de la diverticulitis

Routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for radiographically confirmed acute diverticulitis. In whom and when is it indicated?

INTRODUCTION: international guidelines recommend a routine colonoscopy to rule out advanced neoplasm after an acute diverticulitis event. However, in recent years, this recommendation has been called into question following the advent of computerized tomography (CT), particularly with regard to uncomplicated diverticulitis. Furthermore, colonoscopy is associated with a risk and additional costs. OBJECTIVE: to understand the diagnostic yield, quality and safety of colonoscopy in the setting of acute diverticulitis. METHODS: this was a retrospective study of all patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis via CT between 2005 and 2013, who subsequently underwent a colonoscopy. RESULTS: two hundred and sixteen patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis via CT were enrolled. These included 58 cases with complicated diverticulitis (27%) and 158 with uncomplicated diverticulitis (73%). An advanced neoplasm was found in 12 patients (5.6%); 11.7% were complicated and 3.2% were uncomplicated (p = 0.02). No major complications were identified. The quality was low but improved over time; the complete procedure rate was 88%, an effective preparation was achieved in 75% and excision of polyps < 2 cm was performed in 78% of cases. The optimum colonoscopy quality cu-off was 9.5 weeks. CONCLUSION: routine colonoscopy is advisable after a complicated diverticulitis event but its recommendation is unclear with regard to uncomplicated episodes. Colonoscopy is safe even when performed early. The overall quality is low but may be optimized via a subsequent endoscopy, two months after a diverticulitis diagnosis.

Can Helicobacter pylori Eradication Treatment Modify the Metabolic Response to Bariatric Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (HP) colonization is common in severely obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. HP eradication treatment could influence the evolution of weight loss and metabolic markers after bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of HP eradication in the clinical course of morbid obesity patients treated with bariatric surgery (gastric bypass (LRYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (LSG)) METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort of 229 patients that underwent bariatric surgery between 2010 and 2013 in Hospital del Mar. HP infection was tested preoperatively by gastric biopsy and, if positive, treated with omeprazole, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin for 14 days. Patients were followed at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after bariatric surgery. Short-term weight loss and metabolic outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: HP treated (HPt) patients had a greater reduction in BMI at 3 months after LSG (ΔBMI (kg/cm2) 8.5 ± 4.1 vs 11.3 ± 3.05 kg/m2; p = 0.004) and a reduction in the evolution of triglyceride levels from baseline to 12 months (p = 0.014) compared to HP-negative (HP-) subjects. Also, non-diabetic HPt patients had a greater reduction in glucose levels at all time points that was maintained up to 24 months after LRYGB (p = 0.003). No differences were observed in total and LDL cholesterol levels, HOMA-IR, or HbA1C. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative HP eradication has a short-term influence on some metabolic parameters after bariatric surgery.