Faculty Bibliography

Background. Utilization of colonoscopy for routine colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the elderly (patients over 75) is controversial. This study was designed to evaluate if using fecal occult blood test (FOBT) to select patients for colonoscopy can improve yield and be a cost- effective approach for the elderly. Methods. Records of 10,908 subjects who had colonoscopy during the study period were reviewed. 1496 (13.7%) were >/=75 years. In 118 of these subjects, a colonoscopy was performed to evaluate a positive FOBT. Outcomes were compared between +FOBT group (F-Group) and the asymptomatic screening group (AS-Group). The cost-effectiveness was also calculated using a median estimated standardized worldwide colonoscopy and FOBT cost (rounded to closest whole numbers) of 1000 US $ and 10 US $, respectively. Results. 118/1496 (7.9%) colonoscopies were performed for evaluation of +FOBT. 464/1496 (31%) colonoscopies were performed in AS-Group. In F-Group, high risk adenoma detection rate (HR-ADR) was 15.2%, and 11.9% had 1-2 tubular adenomas. In comparison, the control AS-Group had HR-ADR of 19.2% and 17.7% had 1-2 tubular adenomas. In the FOBT+ group, CRC was detected in 5.1% which was significantly higher than the AS-Group in which CRC was detected in 1.7% (P = 0.03). On cost-effectiveness analysis, cost per CRC detected was significantly lower, that is, 19,666 US $ in F-Group in comparison to AS-Group 58,000 US $ (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in other parameters among groups. Conclusion. Prescreening with FOBT to select elderly for colonoscopy seems to improve the yield and can be a cost-effective CRC screening approach in this subset. The benefit in the risk benefit analysis of screening the elderly appears improved by prescreening with an inexpensive tool.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of colorectal cancer and decision for colorectal cancer screening is influenced by multiple factors including ethnicity, level of education, and adherence to regular medical follow up. OBJECTIVE: Our survey aimed at assessing barriers to colorectal cancer screening among urban population. DESIGN: This study is a survey of the general population. SETTING: This study was made at a local community in the downtown area of a metropolitan city. PATIENTS/SUBJECTS: The study population for this survey included 2000 non-institutionalized residents from local community of Brooklyn downtown area of City of Brooklyn, NY, USA. All participants were 50 years or older. INTERVENTION: No intervention was done. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The survey questionnaire collected information about demographic, socioeconomic level, awareness of various cancers and their screening methods, and awareness of screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was identified as the best screening test by 31 % of the subjects. Pain and discomfort was the major reason for not having a colonoscopy. The fear of a complication declined significantly after the first colonoscopy but fear of pain and discomfort increased. Difficulty with bowel preparation before a colonoscopy was a significant problem; it discouraged significant number of participants from having another colonoscopy. LIMITATION: This study is limited by its small sample size. CONCLUSION: Physician/family and peer influence seems important but influencing only a minority of subjects. Fear of complications should be allayed using accurate statistical information. Pain should be significantly diminished and/or eliminated during colonoscopy. Future research should focus to minimize complexity and discomfort associated with bowel preparation.

BACKGROUND: Advances in endoscopic and surgical techniques have increased the frequency and complexity of these procedures, and thus, the incidence of associated complications. AIMS: To describe the use and clinical applications of the Over the Scope Clip (OTSC) system. METHODS: An English language literature search was conducted using the key words "endoscopy" and "over the scope clip" in order to identify human studies evaluating the application of OTSC from January 2001 to August 2012. The indication, efficacy, complications, and limitations were recorded. RESULTS: Overall success rates of OTSC based on current literature range are in the range of 75% to 100% for closure of iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforations, 38% to 100% for closure of gastrointestinal fistulas, 50% to 100% for anastomotic leaks, and 71% to 100% for bleeding lesions. OTSCs have shown 100% success rates in managing postbariatric surgery weight gain secondary to dilation of the gastrojejunal pouch. CONCLUSION: OTSC is easy to use with good results, thus decreasing the morbidity and mortality associated with the complications secondary to both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy and avoiding surgery in many situations.

The exponential increase in the rate of obesity and its associated co-morbidities has increased the demand for bariatric surgery. Over the past few decades, surgical weight reduction by gastric restriction, malabsorption, or a combination of both has been the preferred approach to achieve sustained weight loss in the morbidly obese. Although extremely effective, surgical procedures carry significant complications and risk with mortality rates of 1%. Because of the cost, surgical risk, and complications, there is a demand for less invasive procedures. Endoscopic approaches include placement of endoluminal space-occupying devices, stapling devices to reduce gastric volume, barrier devices to reduce small bowel absorptive area, and methods to regulate gastric emptying. Current and ongoing studies have delivered promising results across many aspects of endoscopic approaches. However, many technical obstacles still exist that have to be resolved with further research before endoscopic bariatrics can be widely deployed. At present the role of endoscopy is well established in preoperative evaluation as well as in recognition and management of many postoperative complications in bariatrics. In this article, we review the current and future endoscopic methods for weight reduction that are either in practice or in testing.

Splenic injury is an uncommon complication of colonoscopy. Less than 100 cases are reported in the English language literature. The exact mechanism of injury to the spleen during colonoscopy is unknown; various authors propose several risk factors and possible mechanisms. Splenic injury can be graded or classified according to the extent of laceration and the severity of the resultant hematoma. The management options range from observation to emergency splenectomy. Computed tomography scan is the most important imaging modality to diagnose splenic injury. Early recognition and appropriate management is of paramount importance in the management of this condition. A high index of suspicion in a patient with persistent abdominal pain after colonoscopy is key especially when a perforated viscous is ruled out. This article outlines the clinical presentation of splenic injury after colonoscopy and delineates a management algorithm.