There are many reports about causes of corrosive agents such as acids and alkaline and occasionally hot food in either liquid or solid forms as causes of upper gastrointestinal mucosal injury. However, there have been no reports on bowel preparation solutions as a cause of upper gastrointestinal injury. We describe a case of bowel preparation solution (PICOLIGHT powder) induced thermal injury of the gastric mucosa with a review of the literature.
Cathartics ; Gastric Mucosa*

Gastritis cystica polyposa (GCP) is a rare lesion characterized by hyperplastic and cystic dilatation of the gastric mucous glands infiltrating into the underlying submucosa. A cumulative experience suggests that GCP represents a manifestation of a spectrum of reactive inflammatory responses to mucosal injury. The case reported herein is a GCP developed as multiple polypoid lesions with a circular arrangement in the gastric mucosae along the gastrojejunostomy site.
Dilatation ; Gastric Bypass ; Gastric Mucosa ; Gastritis*

Heterotopia refers to the finding of normal tissue in foreign sites, entirely separate from the main organ. Heterotopic gastric mucosa has been observed throughout the alimentary tract, everywhere from the oral cavity to the rectum. However, occurrences in the umbilicus are an extremely rare and peculiar phenomena. We report the case of heterotopic gastric mucosa in the umbilicus.
Gastric Mucosa ; Mouth ; Rectum ; Umbilicus

No abstract available.
Gastric Mucosa* ; Meckel Diverticulum* ; Ulcer*

No abstract available.
Gastric Mucosa* ; Helicobacter pylori* ; Helicobacter*

18 cases with pepsic ulceration and infected H.pylory received omeprazole, amoxicilline and metronidazole (OAM) in a week and treated complementarily with trymo in 4 weeks. The results of treatment were evaluated by histology; ultrasound and endoscopy have shown that pain relief: 94.4%, ulcerative healing: 88.9%, eradication of H.pylori: 77.8%; the rate of ulcerative healing and eradication of H.pylori: 94.4% reduction of inflamatory express: after 6 months and 12 months of treatment: 72.2 and 77.8% respectively.
Peptic Ulcer ; Gastric Mucosa ; therapeutics

The study was conduced on 528 patients aged > 19 years old with chronic gastritis (346 males and 182 females). Among plasia, 58 cases of dysplasia. Results showed a higher rate of intestinal heteroplasia, dysplasial, Helicobacter pylori infection in the group of atrophic inflamatory. The incidence of HP infection was higher, the incidence of active gastritis was severer. the more severe atrophic inflammation, the higher incidence of intestinal heteroplasia and dysplasia was. The higher intestinal heteroplasia and dysplasia, the larger HP infection was. HP infection in stomach mucous increased the risk of intestinal heteroplasia and dysplasia in patients with chronic gastritis.
Diagnosis ; Helicobacter pylori ; Gastric Mucosa

The radiologic findings of prolapsed gastric mucosa through gastrojejunostomy stoma after gastrectomy is very characteristic, but recurrent gastric cancer, retrograde jejunogastric intussusception, and Hofmeister defect should be differentiated from it because of their simillar postoperative upper gastrointestinal series findings.The author reports 3 cases of prolapsed gastric mucosa through gastrojejunostomy stoma after Hofmeister's gastrectomy with brief review of the literature.
Gastrectomy ; Gastric Bypass ; Gastric Mucosa ; Intussusception ; Stomach Neoplasms

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To investigate whether the EndoLifter (Olympus), a counter-traction device facilitating submucosal dissection, can accelerate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). METHODS: Two endoscopists (novice/expert in ESD) performed 64 ESDs (artificial 3-cm lesions) in 16 ex vivo pig stomachs: per stomach, two at the posterior wall (forward approach) and two at the lesser curvature (retroflex approach). Per approach, one lesion was dissected with (EL+) and one without (EL-) the EndoLifter. The submucosal dissection time (SDT), corrected for specimen size, and the influence of ESD experience on EndoLifter usefulness were assessed. RESULTS: En bloc resection rate was 98.4%. In the forward approach, the median SDT was shorter with the EndoLifter (0.56 min/cm2 vs. 0.91 min/cm2), although not significantly (p=0.09). The ESD-experienced endoscopist benefitted more from the EndoLifter (0.45 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.07) than the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist (0.77 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 1.01 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.48). In the retroflex approach, the median SDTs were 1.06 (EL+) and 0.48 (EL-) min/cm2 (p=0.16). The EndoLifter did not shorten the SDT for the ESD-experienced endoscopist (0.68 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.78), whereas the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist seemed hindered (1.65 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.38 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In gastric ESD, the EndoLifter, in trend, shortens SDTs in the forward, but not in the retroflex approach. Given the low numbers in this study, a type II error cannot be excluded.
Gastric Mucosa ; Stomach ; Stomach Neoplasms ; Swine

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To investigate whether the EndoLifter (Olympus), a counter-traction device facilitating submucosal dissection, can accelerate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). METHODS: Two endoscopists (novice/expert in ESD) performed 64 ESDs (artificial 3-cm lesions) in 16 ex vivo pig stomachs: per stomach, two at the posterior wall (forward approach) and two at the lesser curvature (retroflex approach). Per approach, one lesion was dissected with (EL+) and one without (EL-) the EndoLifter. The submucosal dissection time (SDT), corrected for specimen size, and the influence of ESD experience on EndoLifter usefulness were assessed. RESULTS: En bloc resection rate was 98.4%. In the forward approach, the median SDT was shorter with the EndoLifter (0.56 min/cm2 vs. 0.91 min/cm2), although not significantly (p=0.09). The ESD-experienced endoscopist benefitted more from the EndoLifter (0.45 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.07) than the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist (0.77 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 1.01 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.48). In the retroflex approach, the median SDTs were 1.06 (EL+) and 0.48 (EL-) min/cm2 (p=0.16). The EndoLifter did not shorten the SDT for the ESD-experienced endoscopist (0.68 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.78), whereas the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist seemed hindered (1.65 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.38 [EL-] min/cm2, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In gastric ESD, the EndoLifter, in trend, shortens SDTs in the forward, but not in the retroflex approach. Given the low numbers in this study, a type II error cannot be excluded.
Gastric Mucosa ; Stomach ; Stomach Neoplasms ; Swine