Diagnosing inflammatory bowel disease and differentiating it from potential mimics

The initial diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) requires multiple diagnostic modalities; however, endoscopic evaluation as a diagnostic test is considered the gold standard. Endoscopic evaluation includes colonoscopy with ileoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, enteroscopy, and capsule endoscopy. IBD encompasses Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and IBD unclassified. Colonoscopy with ileoscopy along with biopsy collection is essential in most IBD cases for diagnosis and to rule out alternative findings that may mimic IBD including ischemia, diverticulitis, segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis, neoplasia, radiation enteritis, and drug-induced colitis. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, enteroscopy, and capsule endoscopy are used in the initial workup of specific groups of patients with IBD. The role of endoluminal diagnostic studies in the initial diagnosis of IBD is discussed in detail in this article.     

A prospective study comparing endoscopy and EUS in the evaluation of GI subepithelial masses

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to prospectively evaluate the performance characteristics of endoscopy and EUS in the diagnosis of GI subepithelial masses. METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive patients referred for the evaluation of a suspected GI subepithelial lesion were prospectively studied with endoscopy followed by EUS. Size, color, mobility, location (intramural or extramural), consistency (solid, cystic, or vascular), and presumptive diagnosis were recorded at the time of endoscopy. EUS then was performed, and size, echogenicity, location, and presumptive diagnosis were determined. RESULTS: A total of 100 subepithelial lesions were evaluated. Endoscopy had 98% sensitivity and 64% specificity in identifying intramural lesions. Size measurement by endoscopy correlated with size measurement by EUS (r = 0.88). Histology was obtained in 23 cases, with the presumptive EUS diagnosis correct in only 48% of cases. Most incorrect EUS diagnoses occurred with hypoechoic 3rd and 4th layer masses. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy has high sensitivity but low specificity in identifying the location (intramural or extramural) of subepithelial lesions. In addition, EUS imaging alone is insufficient to accurately diagnose 3rd and 4th layer hypoechoic masses, and histologic confirmation should be obtained whenever possible.     

Endoscopic treatments for small gastric subepithelial tumors originating from muscularis propria layer

Minimally invasive endoscopic resection has become an increasingly popular method for patients with small (less than 3.5 cm in diameter) gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) originating from the muscularis propria (MP) layer. Currently, the main endoscopic therapies for patients with such tumors are endoscopic muscularis excavation, endoscopic full-thickness resection, and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection. Although these endoscopic techniques can be used for complete resection of the tumor and provide an accurate pathological diagnosis, these techniques have been associated with several negative events, such as incomplete resection, perforation, and bleeding. This review provides detailed information on the technical details, likely treatment outcomes, and complications associated with each endoscopic method for treating/removing small gastric SETs that originate from the MP layer.     

Perforation from endoscopic small bowel biopsy.

Two patients, having undergone an apparently straightforward endoscopy with small bowel biopsy, developed a perforation. One, who proved to have normal small bowel mucosa, needed laparotomy and suturing of the duodenal perforation. The other, who had coeliac disease, settled with conservative management.     

Clinical and histologic features differentiating non-relapsing colitis from first attacks of inflammatory bowel disease

This is a study of first attacks of colitis, evaluating prospectively the overall course with repeated histologic, clinical, laboratory, and initial microbiologic examinations. Forty-two attacks of colitis could after a follow-up period of 5.5 years be separated into relapsing and non-relapsing types. Relapse was chosen as a prerequisite for a final diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. In the non-relapsing group 72% of the patients harboured enteropathogenic bacteria. An insidious onset of diarrhoeal symptoms was highly discriminant of inflammatory bowel disease, whereas an acute onset mostly occurred in patients with non-relapsing colitis. Macroscopic differentiation at sigmoidoscopy was not possible. Distorted crypt architecture (92%) and/or basal plasmacytosis (77%) at initial biopsies strongly indicated inflammatory bowel disease but was also found transiently in patients with infectious colitis (19%). Thus, careful microbiologic and clinical investigation and repeated histologic examinations are necessary to distinguish infectious colitis from inflammatory bowel disease.     

Gene expression in the adapting small bowel after massive small bowel resection

Background Intestinal adaptation occurs in the residual bowel following the loss or resection of a proportion of the small bowel. The purpose of the adaptive response is to return absorptive and digestive properties to near normal levels. This study employed a rat model of massive small bowel resection (MSBR) to study the adaptive response in the residual terminal ileum and the jejunum. The time points were chosen to reflect changes in gene expression early on in the response, because these are the genes that alter to initiate and maximize the response observed during adaptation. Methods Sprague Dawley rats underwent an 80% resection. Differential display polymerase chain reaction (DD-PCR) analysis was performed on mRNA extracted from the remnant ileum and jejunum 0, 1, 2, 4, and 7 days post-MSBR. Results DD-PCR identified 11 genes that were possibly regulated following MSBR. Genes confirmed to be regulated were 16S ribosomal RNA, lymphocyte antigen 6 (LY6)-like molecule, Krüppel-like factor-3 (KLF-3), G-protein-binding protein (CRFG), system A transporter 2 (SAT2), and an intestine-specific gene (similar to mKIAA0493). Conclusions DD-PCR analysis showed regulation of a number of genes not previously known to be involved in adaptation after MSBR or previously characterized in the intestine. These genes may be important in bringing about the complement of changes seen during the adaptive response.     

An interesting coexistence: small bowel volvulus and small bowel diverticulosis.

Acquired (non-Meckel's) jejuno-ileal diverticular disease is uncommon, and most surgeons have limited, if any, experience with this condition. We present an interesting case with coexistence of small bowel diverticulum and small bowel volvulus with massive abdominal distension, in which the patient had a history of abdominal distension without abdominal pain over a five-year period. A brief discussion of the common clinical features is given and the principles of treatment of jejuno-ileal diverticular disease and small bowel volvulus are presented. A 29-year- old man with no history of laparotomy was admitted with abdominal distension and abdominal compartment syndrome symptoms. An emergency laparotomy revealed 180 degree clockwise volvulus of the multiple diverticula-bearing terminal ileum. There was no diverticulum in other sites of the small intestine and colon. Additionally, there was neither adhesion nor any congenital anomalies at the other sites of the gastrointestinal system. The viability of the intestine was normal but the diameter of the ileum was extremely enlarged (approximately 20 cm). In addition, the bowel wall was also hypertrophied. The rotated and enormously enlarged diverticula-bearing small intestine was removed with cecum, and ileocolostomy was performed. The patient was discharged uneventfully from hospital on the eighth postoperative day. After the operation, all symptoms of the patient disappeared. Small bowel obstruction is a common cause of emergency surgical admission. Awareness of the fact that volvulus of the diverticula-bearing segment of the jejuno- ileum is a rare cause of small bowel obstruction may lead to earlier and prompt diagnosis and treatment.     

大鼠肝肠联合移植后肝对小肠的免疫保护作用

目的：建立大鼠肝肠联合整体移植模型,研究移植肝是否对移植小肠具有免疫保护作用．方法：选用封闭群SD大鼠和近交系Wistar大鼠．实验分5组：同基因小肠移植组、同基因肝移植组、异基因小肠移植组、异基因肝移植组、肝肠联合移植组．同基因移植供受体均为Wistar大鼠,异基因小肠移植、肝移植和肝肠联合移植供受体分别选用SD和Wistar大鼠．肝肠联合移植在切取移植物后,利用供体胸段下腔静脉在门静脉侧壁建立一袖套,并安置套管．受体手术时,将此门静脉侧壁袖套与受体门静脉残端套管法吻合．供体肠系膜上动脉与受体右肾动脉吻合．免疫保护作用通过术后5,7,14 d从各组随机取出4只大鼠的移植物普通病理检查及细胞凋亡检测评估．结果：肝肠联合移植模型建立手术成功率73．3%(22/30)．同基因移植组术后仅表现为缺血-再灌注损伤所致的轻度组织损伤及炎症反应,移植物细胞凋亡数逐渐减少．异基因移植术后均出现急性排斥、移植物细胞凋亡数递增,并且较同基因移植多,差别有显著性．小肠移植术后5,7,14 d分别表现为轻度、中度和重度排斥．而肝肠联合移植的小肠移植物术后5,7,14 d分别表现为轻度、轻度和中度排斥,且14 d时小肠细胞凋亡数较异基因小肠移植组少,差别具有显著性(16．9±4．3 vs 20．5±6．3,P＜0．05)．术后各时间点异基因肝移植和肝肠联合移植的移植肝排斥反应严重程度相同,细胞凋亡数比较无显著差异．结论：此法建立大鼠肝肠联合移植模型可行．肝肠联合移植时肝对小肠具有免役保护作用．     

超声内镜对上消化道黏膜下小病变的诊断价值

目的探讨超声内镜对上消化道直径〈3cm的黏膜下病变的诊断价值。方法回顾性分析2002年1月～2010年8月我院收治的上消化道直径〈3em的黏膜下小病变患者的临床资料。纳入标准：患者经黏膜下肿块剜出术切除病灶,手术后有确切病理诊断;患者在术前曾行超声内镜检查。结果共纳入54例患者,病灶平均大小为（1．06±0．58）cm。黏膜下肿块剜出术的治愈率达82．9％。超声内镜对此类病灶的诊断准确率为74．1％（40／54）;共有14例病例误诊,其中异位胰腺最常见。结论超声内镜对上消化道直径〈3cm的黏膜下病灶具有较高的诊断价值,异位胰腺是最易误诊的病变,黏膜下肿块剜出术可能是治疗上消化道黏膜下小病变的一种有效且安全的方法。     

环扫超声内镜术前评估对食管上皮下肿物内镜治疗的意义

目的探讨环扫超声内镜(EUS)术前评估对食管上皮下肿物内镜治疗的意义。方法选取内镜发现食管上皮下肿物并行内镜下或外科手术治疗的患者30例,麻醉状态下行环扫EUS术前评估。食管上皮下肿物内镜下治疗可选择不同内镜下手术方式,黏膜肌层病变非气管插管麻醉行内镜下黏膜切除术(endoscopic mucosal resection,EMR);黏膜下层、固有肌层病变气管插管麻醉行内镜黏膜下隧道肿瘤切除术(submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection,STER)或外科手术。结果20例术后诊断为黏膜肌层病变中,19例术前环扫EUS明确诊断,1例术前诊断为固有肌层病变;8例术后诊断为固有肌层病变及2例黏膜下层病变中,术前环扫EUS均明确诊断。Weighted Kappa评价显示,点估计0.92268,95%CI估计0.77431~1.00000,提示环扫EUS诊断与术后内镜下诊断一致性优秀。结论环扫EUS对食管上皮下肿物层次定位有较高的可靠性,对手术方式及麻醉方式的选择有指导意义。检查可在患者麻醉状态下完成,检查过程较舒适。     

Evaluation of the small bowel in inflammatory bowel disease

Crohn’s disease is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can affect the entire GI tract, and adequate visualization of the small bowel is imperative for both diagnosis and management. Magnetic resonance and computed tomography enterography have gradually replaced barium-based studies. Magnetic resonance enterography has the distinct advantage of avoiding ionizing radiation to which many patients with IBD are overexposed. Endoscopy-based techniques, including capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy, allow direct visualization of the small bowel mucosa. Deep enteroscopy has the additional benefit of allowing sampling of the mucosa for histological analysis. Small intestine contrast ultrasound is rapidly gaining credence as an excellent, radiation-free imaging technique, but is not available in all countries. Other imaging modalities, such as positron emission tomography and leucocyte scintigraphy, continue to be studied and may have a role in specific circumstances. This review summarizes the evidence for the various techniques for evaluating the small bowel in IBD.     

Comparison of platelet-lymphocyte ratio and CA 19-9 in differentiating benign from malignant head masses in patients with chronic pancreatitis

Introduction

Pancreatic head ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and inflammatory head masses (IHM) related to chronic pancreatitis are often difficult to differentiate. PDAC produces significant inflammatory response with resultant lymphopenia and thrombocytosis. The prognostic role of platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as a tumor marker has been defined. We aimed to find the role of PLR as a diagnostic marker for PDAC in differentiating benign head mass comparing with carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9).

Methods

A prospective study of patients with biopsy-proven PDAC and benign IHM with underlying chronic pancreatitis from 1st November 2014 to 30th June 2016 was performed. Total blood count including platelet count and CA 19-9 were recorded and statistically analyzed.

Results

There was no significant difference in total leukocyte counts (7789±2027 vs. 7568±1289 cells/mm³) between PDAC (n = 34) and IHM (n = 27). However, the mean lymphocyte (2235±837 vs. 2701±631 cells/mm³) and platelet counts in mm³ (3.36±0.789) × 10⁵ vs. (2.45±0.598) × 10⁵ showed difference. The median PLR was 161.9 (IQR = 117.5–205.6) in PDAC and 91 (IQR = 77.2–106.6) in IHM. The median CA 19-9 (U/mL) in PDAC and IHM was 69.3 (IQR = 22.7–427.7) and 13.9 (IQR = 7.2–23.6), respectively. On plotting the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC curve), area under the curve was maximum for PLR (88.7%) compared to CA 19-9 (77.8%) in diagnosing PDAC (p<0.0001). Using coordinates of ROC, PLR cutoff value was 113.5 (sensitivity—79.4%, specificity—92.6%, positive predictive value (PPV)—91.5%, negative predictive value (NPV)—99.7%) while CA 19-9 cutoff value was 25.3 U/mL (sensitivity—73.5%, specificity—77.8%, PPV—78.5%, NPV—74.6%).

Conclusion

PLR may be useful to differentiate PDAC from benign IHM in patients with chronic pancreatitis.

     

Capsule enteroscopy in small bowel transplantation

BACKGROUND: Enteroscopy plays a key role in the post-operative monitoring of patients with small bowel transplantation for the early detection of post-transplant complications and for the assessment of the graft's integrity. Routine surveillance enteroscopies (trans-stomal terminal ileoscopy or jejunoscopy) are invasive, may be unsafe in frail patients, and only allow incomplete exploration of the transplanted graft, which may be unsatisfactory. since the distribution of the lesions is often patchy or segmental. AIMS. To evaluate the potential of capsule enteroscopy, a new, minimally invasive technique which allows complete exploration of the small bowel. in small bowel transplant recipients. METHODS: Five small bowel transplanted patients underwent capsule enteroscopy with the GIVEN endoscopy system. The results of capsule enteroscopy were compared with those of trans-stomal ileoscopy. RESULTS: Capsule enteroscopy was better tolerated than ileoscopy and good quality images of the small bowel were obtained in four patients. The terminal ileum was normal both on ileoscopy and capsule enteroscopy. Mucosal changes in segments not reached by ileoscopy were detected by capsule enteroscopy in three of four patients. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule enteroscopy is better tolerated than ileoscopy, allows complete exploration of the transplanted graft and can detect mucosal changes in segments not reached by ileoscopy.