Annals of Coloproctology

Case Report

Pneumoretroperitoneum, Pneumomediastinum, Subcutaneous Emphysema After a Rectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Hee Cheul Jung, Hyun Jin Kim, Sung Bok Ji, Jun Hyeong Cho, Ji Hye Kwak, Chang Min Lee, Wan Soo Kim, Jin Ju Kim, Jae Min Lee, Sang Su Lee; Ann Coloproctol. 2016;32(6):234-238. Published online December 31, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2016.32.6.234

5,320 View
70 Download
1 Web of Science
2 Citations

An endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective and safe therapeutic technique for treating a patient with a laterally-spreading tumor (LST). Colonoscopic-procedure-related complications are noted to be about 2.8% worldwide, and a perforation is the most common. Most colon perforations cause pneumoperitoneum. However, a perforation within the retroperitoneal portion of the colon (rectum and some of sigmoid colon) may cause an extraperitoneal perforation, and the leaking free air may induce pneumoretroperitoneum, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema, depending on the amount of discharged air. Herein, we present the case of a patient with an extraperitoneal colon microperforation which manifested as pneumoretroperitoneum, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema after an EMR for a sigmoid LST, which was successfully treated with medical treatment and endoscopic clipping.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The Close Relationship between Large Bowel and Heart: When a Colonic Perforation Mimics an Acute Myocardial Infarction
Maria Francesca Secchi, Carlo Torre, Giovanni Dui, Francesco Virdis, Mauro Podda
Case Reports in Surgery.2018; 2018: 1. CrossRef
Pneumoretroperitoneum, Pneumomediastinum, Pneumothorax, and Subcutaneous Emphysema after Diagnostic Colonoscopy
Hee Sung Lee, Hwan Hee Park, Ju Seok Kim, Sun Hyung Kang, Hee Seok Moon, Jae Kyu Sung, Byung Seok Lee, Hyun Yong Jeong
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2017; 70(3): 145. CrossRef

Original Articles

Effectiveness of Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (PICO) for Colonoscopy Preparation: Ki Hwan Song, Wu Seok Suh, Jin Sik Jeong, Dong Sik Kim, Sang Woo Kim, Dong Min Kwak, Jong Seong Hwang, Hyun Jin Kim, Man Woo Park, Min Chul Shim, Ja-Il Koo, Jae Hwang Kim, Dae Ho Shon; Ann Coloproctol. 2014;30(5):222-227. Published online October 28, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2014.30.5.222

4,525 View
51 Download
8 Web of Science
6 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

Bowel preparation with sodium phosphate was recently prohibited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is safe and effective; however, it is difficult to drink. To identify an easy bowel preparation method for colonoscopy, we evaluated three different bowel preparation regimens regarding their efficacy and patient satisfaction.

Methods

In this randomized, comparative study, 892 patients who visited a secondary referral hospital for a colonoscopy between November 2012 and February 2013 were enrolled. Three regimens were evaluated: three packets of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (PICO, group A), two packets of PICO with 1 L of PEG (PICO + PEG 1 L, group B), and two packets of PICO with 2 L of PEG (PICO + PEG 2 L, group C). A questionnaire survey regarding the patients' preference for the bowel preparation regimen and satisfaction was conducted before the colonoscopies. The quality of bowel cleansing was scored by the colonoscopists who used the Aronchick scoring scale and the Ottawa scale.

Results

The patients' satisfaction rate regarding the regimens were 72% in group A, 64% in group B, and 45.9% in group C. Nausea and abdominal bloating caused by the regimens were more frequent in group C than in group A or group B (P < 0.01). Group C showed the lowest preference rate compared to the other groups (P < 0.01). Group C showed better right colon cleansing efficacy than group A or group B.

Conclusion

Group A exhibited a better result than group B or group C in patient satisfaction and preference. In the cleansing quality, no difference was noted between groups A and C.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

White Diet with split‐dose Picosalax is preferred, better tolerated, and non‐inferior to day‐before clear fluids with polyethylene glycol plus sodium picosulfate‐magnesium citrate for morning colonoscopy: A randomized, non‐inferiority trial
Jeremy P Dwyer, Jonathan Y C Tan, Eldho Paul, Catherine Bunn, Dileep Mangira, Robyn Secomb, Peter R Gibson, Gregor Brown
JGH Open.2017; 1(1): 38. CrossRef
Randomized clinical trial comparing fixed-time split dosing and split dosing of oral Picosulfate regimen for bowel preparation
Jae Hyuck Jun, Koon Hee Han, Jong Kyu Park, Hyun Il Seo, Young Don Kim, Sang Jin Lee, Baek Gyu Jun, Min Sik Hwang, Yoon Kyoo Park, Myeong Jong Kim, Gab Jin Cheon
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2017; 23(32): 5986. CrossRef
Upper airway obstruction resulting from acute mucosal injury induced by direct ingestion of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate powder
Gyeong Bo Kim, Sung Yeon Hwang, Tae Gun Shin, Tae Rim Lee, Won Chul Cha, Min Seob Sim, Ik Joon Jo, Keun Jeong Song, Joong Eui Rhee, Yeon Kwon Jeong
Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine.2016; 3(2): 109. CrossRef
Combination could be another tool for bowel preparation?
Jae Seung Soh, Kyung-Jo Kim
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 22(10): 2915. CrossRef
Phase II Randomized Controlled Trial of Combined Oral laxatives Medication for BOwel PREParation (COMBO-PREP study)
Min Jung Kim, Chang Won Hong, Byung Chang Kim, Sung Chan Park, Kyung Su Han, Jungnam Joo, Jae Hwan Oh, Dae Kyung Sohn
Medicine.2016; 95(7): e2824. CrossRef
Frustration Still Exists
Hyun Shig Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2014; 30(5): 207. CrossRef

The Synchronous Prevalence of Colorectal Neoplasms in Patients with Stomach Cancer: Sang Su Lee, Woon Tae Jung, Cha Young Kim, Chang Yoon Ha, Hyun Ju Min, Hyun Jin Kim, Tae Hyo Kim; J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2011;27(5):246-251. Published online October 31, 2011; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2011.27.5.246

3,704 View
29 Download
9 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

The association between stomach cancer and colorectal cancer is controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the synchronous prevalence of colorectal neoplasms in patients with stomach cancer.

Methods

A total of 123 patients with stomach cancer (86 male) and 246 consecutive, age- and sex-matched persons without stomach cancer were analyzed from July 2005 to June 2010. All of them underwent colonoscopy within 6 months after undergoing gastroscopy.

Results

The prevalence of colorectal neoplasms was significantly higher in the stomach cancer group (35.8%) than in the control group (17.9%) (P < 0.001). Colorectal neoplasms were more prevalent in the patients with stomach cancer (odds ratio [OR], 3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71 to 5.63). In particular, the difference in the prevalence of colorectal neoplasms was more prominent in the patients above 50 years old (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.80 to 6.98).

Conclusion

The results showed that the synchronous prevalence of colorectal neoplasms was higher in patients with stomach cancer than in those without stomach cancer. Therefore, patients with stomach cancer should be regarded as a high-risk group for colorectal neoplasms, and colonoscopy should be recommended for screening.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Colonoscopy plays an important role in detecting colorectal neoplasms in patients with gastric neoplasms
Xu-Rui Liu, Ze-Lin Wen, Fei Liu, Zi-Wei Li, Xiao-Yu Liu, Wei Zhang, Dong Peng
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology.2024; 16(1): 133. CrossRef
Retrospective cohort study investigating association between precancerous gastric lesions and colorectal neoplasm risk
Hui Pan, Yu-Long Zhang, Chao-Ying Fang, Yu-Dai Chen, Li-Ping He, Xiao-Ling Zheng, Xiaowen Li
Frontiers in Oncology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Genetic analyses supporting colorectal, gastric, and prostate cancer syndromes
Karin Wallander, Wen Liu, Susanna von Holst, Jessada Thutkawkorapin, Vinaykumar Kontham, Anna Forsberg, Annika Lindblom, Kristina Lagerstedt‐Robinson
Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer.2019; 58(11): 775. CrossRef
Frequency and risk factors of colorectal adenoma in patients with early gastric cancer
Hyun H. Chung, Kyeong O. Kim, Si H. Lee, Byung I. Jang, Tae N. Kim
Internal Medicine Journal.2017; 47(10): 1184. CrossRef
Is Colonoscopic Screening Necessary for Patients Younger than 50 Years with Gastric Adenoma or Cancer?
Nam Hee Kim, Jung Ho Park, Dong Il Park, Chong Il Sohn, Yoon Suk Jung
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2017; 32(8): 1281. CrossRef
Is Preoperative Work-Up Colonoscopy Necessary for Patient with Gastric Cancer?
Hee Chan Yang, Ju Hyung Lee, Sung Kyun Yim, Hong-Seon Son, Seung Young Seo, Seong Hun Kim, In Hee Kim, Seung Ok Lee, Soo Teik Lee, Sang Wook Kim
The Korean Journal of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research.2016; 16(4): 215. CrossRef
Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Surgery for Synchronous Gastric and Colorectal Cancer
Ryoji Makizumi, Shinya Mikami, Kuniyasu Horikoshi, Tsukasa Shimamura, Shinjiro Kobayashi, Akira Hanai, Satoshi Tsukikawa, Yukihito Kokuba, Nobuyoshi Miyajima, Takehito Otsubo
Journal of St. Marianna University.2015; 6(2): 273. CrossRef
Clinical Significance of Colonoscopy in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Polyps and Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis
Zhen-Jie Wu, Yuan Lin, Jun Xiao, Liu-Cheng Wu, Jun-Gang Liu, John Green
PLoS ONE.2014; 9(3): e91810. CrossRef
Role of Preoperative Colonoscopy in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Case Control Study of the Prevalence of Coexisting Colorectal Neoplasms
Han Mo Yoo, Tae Geun Gweon, Ho Seok Seo, Jung Ho Shim, Sung Il Oh, Myung Gyu Choi, Kyo Young Song, Hae Myoung Jeon, Cho Hyun Park
Annals of Surgical Oncology.2013; 20(5): 1614. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search