BACKGROUND/AIMS: The correlation between the Bristol stool form scale (BSFS) and colonic transit time (CTT) has been reported in Western populations. Our study aims to study the relationship between BSFS, stool frequency, and CTT in Eastern patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: A total of 144 chronic functional constipation patients underwent colonic transit study by using radio-opaque markers, anorectal manometry, and balloon expulsion test. Stool diary including stool forms and frequency was recorded. Delayed CTT was defined as the retention of more than 20.0% of radio-opaque markers in the colon on day 5. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (17.4%) had delayed colonic transit. Mean 5-day BSFS (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34–0.79; P = 0.021) and stool frequency (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44–0.83; P = 0.002) were independently associated with delayed CTT by logistic regression analysis. Mean 5-day BSFS (area under the curve [AUC], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62–0.84; P < 0.001) and stool frequency (AUC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.87; P < 0.001) fairly predicted delayed CTT. The optimal mean 5-day BSFS of ≤ 3 provided 68.0% sensitivity, 69.7% specificity, and 69.4% accuracy, and the optimal stool frequency ≤ 2 bowel movements in 5 days provided 64.0% sensitivity, 83.1% specificity, and 84.0% accuracy for predicting delayed CTT. CONCLUSIONS: Both stool form and frequency were significantly associated with delayed CTT. Stool frequency ≤ 2 and BSFS 1–3 rather than BSFS 1–2 that was used in the Westerners could be used as surrogate for delayed CTT in Eastern patients with constipation.
Colon* ; Constipation ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Manometry ; Sensitivity and Specificity

Background::Endoscopic bariatric therapies can help address widening management gaps in obesity. Their ability to facilitate weight loss is largely tied to influences on appetite through perturbations of gastric emptying and accommodation. As these tools gain traction in obesity therapy, their physiologic underpinnings require exploration, which may enhance efficacy, tolerance, and patient-tailored care.Methods::We prospectively assessed consecutive subjects with fluid-filled intragastric balloons (IGBs) ( n = 18) placed between October 2016 and June 2017 or underwent endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) ( n = 23) from March 2018 to June 2018. Patients underwent physiologic appraisal at 3 months with 13C-spirulina-based gastric emptying breath test to determine time to half emptying (T50), as well as maximum tolerated volume (MTV) of a standard nutrient drink test. Changes in T50 and MTV at 3 months were compared with percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) at 3 and 6 months using best-fit linear regression. Results::The change in T50 at 3 months correlated with %TBWL at 3 months for IGB ( P = 0.01) and ESG ( P = 0.01) but with greater impact on %TBWL in IGB compared to ESG ( R2 = 0.42 vs. 0.26). Change in T50 at 3 months was predictive of weight loss at 6 months for IGB ( P = 0.01) but not ESG ( P = 0.11). ESG was associated with greater decrease in MTV compared to IGB (340.25 ± 297.97 mL vs. 183.00 ± 217.13 mL, P = 0.08), indicting an enhanced effect on satiation through decreased gastric accommodation. Changes in MTV at 3 months did not correlate with %TBWL for either IGB ( P = 0.26) or ESG ( P = 0.49) but trended toward significance for predicting %TBWL at 6 months for ESG ( P = 0.06) but not IGB ( P = 0.19). Conclusion::IGB and ESG both induce weight loss but likely through distinct gastric motor function phenotypes, and gastric emptying may predict future weight loss in patients with IGB.

Background/Aims: Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs). Results: Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480). Conclusions Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.

Background/Aims: Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs). Results: Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480). Conclusions Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.

Background/Aims: Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs). Results: Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480). Conclusions Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.

Background/Aims: Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs). Results: Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480). Conclusions Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.