Faculty Bibliography

OPINION STATEMENT: Dysphagia is a common problem in the elderly population with an especially high prevalence in hospitalized and institutionalized patients. If inadequately addressed, dysphagia leads to significant morbidity and contributes to decreased quality of life. Dysphagia can be categorized as emanating from either an oropharyngeal or esophageal process. A disproportionate number of elderly patients suffer from oropharyngeal dysphagia with a multifactorial etiology. Historically, treatment options have been limited and included mostly supportive care with a focus on dietary modification, food avoidance, and swallow rehabilitation. Nascent technologies such as the functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) and advances in esophageal manometry are improving our understanding of the pathophysiology of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Recent developments in the treatment of specific causes of oropharyngeal dysphagia, including endoscopic balloon dilations for upper esophageal sphincter (UES) dysfunction, show promise and are expected to enhance with further research. Esophageal dysphagia is also common in the elderly and more commonly due to an identifiable cause. The full breadth of treatment options is frequently unavailable to elderly patients due to comorbidities and overall functional status. However, the increasing availability of less invasive solutions to specific esophageal pathologies has augmented the number of treatment options available to this population, where an individualized approach to patient care is paramount. This review focuses on the evaluation and management of dysphagia in the elderly and delineates how standard and novel therapeutics are contributing to more nuanced and personalized management.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Fecal incontinence commonly occurs in patients with ulcerative colitis and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. There is a paucity of manometric data in pouch patients. We aimed to better define manometric parameters in pouch patients with fecal incontinence. METHODS/UNASSIGNED: < .05). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = .033) each independently predicted fecal incontinence in pouch patients. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Pouch patients with fecal incontinence have lower anorectal pressures compared to pouch patients without incontinence, though have similar pressures to non-ulcerative colitis patients with fecal incontinence. Pouch patients with fecal incontinence have similar resting pressures as healthy controls. Distinct manometric normative values for pouch patients are needed.

Functional anorectal disorders are common in patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and often have a debilitating impact on quality of life. The diagnosis of functional anorectal disorders, including fecal incontinence (FI) and defecatory disorders, requires a combination of clinical symptoms and functional testing. Symptoms are generally underdiagnosed and underreported. Commonly utilized tests include anorectal manometry, balloon expulsion test, defecography, electromyography, and pouchoscopy. The treatment for FI begins with lifestyle modifications and medications. Sacral nerve stimulation and tibial nerve stimulation have been trialed on patients with IPAA and FI, resulting in improvement in symptoms. Biofeedback therapy has also been used in patients with FI but is more commonly utilized in defecatory disorders. Early diagnosis of functional anorectal disorders is important because a response to treatment may significantly improve a patient's quality of life. To date, there is limited literature describing the diagnosis and treatment of functional anorectal disorders in patients with IPAA. This article focuses on the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of FI and defecatory disorders in patients with IPAA.

BACKGROUND:Fecal incontinence (FI) affects up to 1 in 4 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and is associated with inflammation, surgeries, and altered rectal sensitivity. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a surgical intervention for select IBD patients to avoid a permanent stoma. High-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) studies in IBD patients with FI demonstrate lower resting pressures and rectal sensory dysfunction. However, HRAM data in IBD patients with FI post-IPAA remains limited. We hypothesized patients with FI would have lower resting and squeeze pressures and rectal hypersensitivity compared to healthy controls and that these changes would be similar after IPAA. METHODS:Retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted on patients undergoing HRAM from 2017-2021 at a single urban academic medical center. Patient characteristics (age, gender, BMI, stool frequency, diabetes, pregnancy history) and surgical history (prior perianal surgery, index vs. re-do IPAA) were obtained. HRAM variables included rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR), sphincter length, resting, squeeze, cough, and push pressures, sensation thresholds (first sensation, constant sensation, desire to defecate, urgency to defecate, max tolerable volume), and balloon expulsion test (BET). HRAM outcomes in IPAA patients with FI (IPAA-FI) were compared to non-IBD patients with FI (non-IBD-FI). HRAM data for both patient cohorts were also compared to existing normative data of healthy controls. Non-IBD patients with constipation and FI were excluded from analysis. An independent samples t-test was performed (p < 0.05) for continuous variables, and chi-square test was used for categorical variables. RESULTS:Fifty-six patients (66% female) were in the non-IBD-FI group. Eighteen patients (67% female) were in the IPAA-FI group. Average age in the IPAA-FI cohort was 44.8 ± 13.6 vs. 66.3 ± 14.4 in the non-IBD-FI group (p< 0.01). Sphincter length in the IPAA-FI group was 2.7 ± 1.1cm vs. 3.2 ± 0.6cm in the non-IBD-FI group (p=0.03). There was no significant difference in sensation thresholds or resting, squeeze, cough, and push pressures between the two groups. Urinary incontinence was observed in 5.6% of IPAA-FI patients vs. 44.6% of non-IBD-FI patients (p < 0.01). RAIR was present in 38.5% of IPAA-FI patients vs. 100% of non-IBD-FI patients (p < 0.01). Both patient cohorts had significantly shorter sphincter length, lower squeeze and push pressures, and lower sensation thresholds compared to normative data. Resting pressures for the IPAA-FI group was not significantly different compared to healthy controls. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Overall, anorectal pressures and sensation are similar between IPAA-FI and non-IBD-FI patients. However, the underlying FI mechanism seems to differ. Higher rates of urinary incontinence in the non-IBD-FI cohort suggests global pelvic floor dysfunction compared to IPAA-FI patients who are younger and have post-operative neuromuscular dysfunction, as evidenced by shorter sphincter length and absent RAIR. Though rectal hypersensitivity and lower squeeze/push pressures are observed in both patient groups compared to healthy controls, normal resting pressure in IPAA-FI suggests that potentially different normative ranges are needed for this cohort to accurately assess post-surgical changes and guide pre-operative counseling.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Familial dysautonomia (FD) is a rare hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathy (HSAN-3) that is clinically characterized by impaired pain and temperature perception and abnormal autonomic function. Patients with FD have gastrointestinal dysmotility and report a range of gastrointestinal symptoms that have yet to be systematically evaluated. The aim of this study was to establish the frequency and severity of gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with FD. METHODS:The validated National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey questionnaire, together with additional FD-specific questions, were distributed to 202 living patients with genetically confirmed FD who had been identified from the New York University FD Patient Registry or, when relevant, to their respective caretaker. As a comparison group, we used a general US adult population for whom PROMIS scores were available (N = 71,812). RESULTS:Of the 202 questionnaires distributed, 77 (38%) were returned, of which 53% were completed by the patient. Median age of the respondents was 25 years, and 44% were male. Gastrostomy tube was the sole nutrition route for 25% of the patients, while 53% were reliant on the gastrostomy tube only for liquid intake. The prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms was significantly higher in each of the eight domains of PROMIS in patients with FD than in the controls. Gastrointestinal symptoms as measured by raw scores on the PROMIS scale were significantly less severe in the FD patient group than in the control population in all domains with the exception of the abdominal pain domain. The surveys completed by caregivers reported the same burden of symptoms as those completed only by patients. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Gastrointestinal symptoms affect nearly all patients with FD. Gastrointestinal symptoms are more prevalent in adult patients with FD than in the average US adult population but are less severe in the former.

Introduction: Colonoscopy is the most commonly used test for colorectal cancer screening in the US, but patients often find the oral bowel preparation difficult, inconvenient, or intolerable. Suboptimal bowel prep occurs in 20-24% of colonoscopies, leading to inadequate examinations that necessitate additional procedures. Colonic irrigation is an FDA-approved method of colon cleansing using a warm water lavage, but few studies have evaluated it as preparation for colonoscopy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate colonic irrigation as an alternative to oral bowel prep in patients undergoing screening/ surveillance colonoscopy. Methods: We conducted a single-center, single-arm feasibility study using the Hydro-San Plus system. Patients followed a low-residue diet and took 2 doses of polyethylene glycol the day before the procedure. Colonoscopy was performed immediately following colonic irrigation. Boston Bowel Prep Scale (BBPS) and adverse events were recorded. A telephone questionnaire was administered within 7 days of the procedure. Results: Of the 21 patients enrolled, 48% had at a medical risk factor for poor prep (Table 1). Eighteen patients completed irrigation, of whom 12 (67%) had an adequate bowel prep, defined as BBPS>1 in all segments (Table 2). Two irrigations were not completed due to minor adverse events (discomfort from speculum insertion and rectal abrasion) and 1 was aborted for mechanical repair. There were no major adverse events. Patients with no risk factors for poor prep were 4 times more likely to have an adequate prep, although this was not statistically significant (P=0.14). Half of the patients felt that irrigation was easy (47%) and comfortable (53%), while most felt it was tolerable (71%) and convenient (82%). Among participants who had previous a colonoscopy with oral prep, the majority felt that irrigation was easier (85%), more tolerable (77%), and more convenient (85%) than oral prep. 82% of respondents said they would ask for irrigation again and only 12% said they would refuse if it were offered. Conclusion: Colonic irrigation is a safe and moderately efficacious alternative to oral bowel prep for screening/surveillance colonoscopy. A more potent oral pre-prep, especially for patients with risk factors for poor prep, may improve efficacy. Importantly, patient satisfaction with colonic irrigation appears to be higher than with oral bowel prep. (Table Presented)

Receptive anal intercourse and its association with sexually transmitted infections and human papillomavirus-related anal dysplasia has been well studied in various at-risk groups including men who have sex with men. However, the relationship between receptive anal intercourse and its potential complications in patients with inflammatory bowel disease is not fully understood. This narrative review discusses sexually transmitted infections and anal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease who engage in receptive anal intercourse and the lack of evidence-based data to guide clinical practice. It addresses the psychosocial effects of stigmatization in these patients and its consequences in the clinical encounter. We review the need for sufficient data on infection, cancer prevention, and precoital and postcoital hygienic practices with hopes that future studies establish standardized guidelines and recommendations.