Afferent loop syndrome is often difficult to resolve. Among patients with afferent loop syndrome whose data were extracted from databases, 5 patients in whom metal stent placement was attempted were included and evaluated in this study. The procedure was technically successful without any adverse events in all patients. Metal stent(s) was placed with an endoscope in the through-the-scope manner in 4 patients and via a percutaneous route in 1 patient. Obvious clinical efficacy was observed in all patients. Adverse events related to the procedure and stent occlusion during the follow-up period were not observed. Metal stent placement for malignant obstruction of the afferent loop was found to be safe and feasible.
Afferent Loop Syndrome ; Endoscopes ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Intestinal Obstruction ; Palliative Care ; Self Expandable Metallic Stents ; Stents* ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVESTo clarify whether di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) has immunotoxic effects on both the expression of surface molecules (CD3, CD4, CD8 and CD28) on T cells of the thymus and spleen in male C57BL/6 mice.

METHODSAnimals were orally administered a 0.1% or 0.2% DEHP-containing diet for 10 or 20 days. Dietary corn oil was used as the vehicle for DEHP in preparing the diet.

RESULTSSignificant hepatic hypertrophy was clearly observed in the DEHP-exposed groups, while no atrophy was seen in the thymus or spleen in any treatment groups. In the thymus and spleen, no variation in the proportions of both T cells expressing CD3, CD4 and CD8 was shown with cytometry analysis. The surface expression of CD3, CD4, CD8 and CD28 on both T cells was also invariable in all analyzed stages of thymic differentiation and in the spleen. No effect of DEHP on mitogenesis was shown in the splenic T cells with anin vitro [(3)H]-thymidine-incorporation technique.

CONCLUSIONSDEHP is probably not an immunosuppressor, particularly for T cells.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for diverticulum-associated colorectal lesions is generally contraindicated because of the high risk of perforation. Several studies on patients with such lesions treated with ESD have been reported recently. However, the feasibility and safety of ESD for lesions in proximity to a colonic diverticulum (D-ESD) have not been fully clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of D-ESD. Methods: D-ESD was defined as ESD for lesions within approximately 3 mm of a diverticulum. Twenty-six consecutive patients who underwent D-ESD were included. Two strategic approaches were used depending on whether submucosal dissection of the diverticulum-related part was required (strategy B) or not (strategy A). Treatment outcomes and adverse events associated with each strategy were analyzed. Results: The en bloc resection rate was 96.2%. The rates of R0 and curative resection in strategies A and B were 80.8%, 73.1%, 84.6%, and 70.6%, respectively. Two cases of intraoperative perforation and one case of delayed perforation occurred. The delayed perforation case required emergency surgery, but the other cases were managed conservatively. Conclusions D-ESD may be a feasible treatment option. However, it should be performed in a high-volume center by expert hands because it requires highly skilled endoscopic techniques.