This case report presents an 81-year-old edentulous female patient with congenital cleft lip and palate, rehabilitated with a maxillary obturator and a mandibular complete denture. A defect in the hard palate causes nasal leakage and hypernasalization of speech. Velopharyngeal insufficiency due to a defect in the soft palate causes reflux during swallowing and decreased clarity of pronunciation.The anatomical structures, such as Passavant’s ridge, were considered to prevent respiratory problems when impression taking. We achieved satisfactory results including velopharyngeal closure for pronunciation, mastication, and swallowing, as well as improved aesthetics. Therefore, we report the process and considerations of the treatment.

This case report presents an 81-year-old edentulous female patient with congenital cleft lip and palate, rehabilitated with a maxillary obturator and a mandibular complete denture. A defect in the hard palate causes nasal leakage and hypernasalization of speech. Velopharyngeal insufficiency due to a defect in the soft palate causes reflux during swallowing and decreased clarity of pronunciation.The anatomical structures, such as Passavant’s ridge, were considered to prevent respiratory problems when impression taking. We achieved satisfactory results including velopharyngeal closure for pronunciation, mastication, and swallowing, as well as improved aesthetics. Therefore, we report the process and considerations of the treatment.

This case report presents an 81-year-old edentulous female patient with congenital cleft lip and palate, rehabilitated with a maxillary obturator and a mandibular complete denture. A defect in the hard palate causes nasal leakage and hypernasalization of speech. Velopharyngeal insufficiency due to a defect in the soft palate causes reflux during swallowing and decreased clarity of pronunciation.The anatomical structures, such as Passavant’s ridge, were considered to prevent respiratory problems when impression taking. We achieved satisfactory results including velopharyngeal closure for pronunciation, mastication, and swallowing, as well as improved aesthetics. Therefore, we report the process and considerations of the treatment.

This case report presents an 81-year-old edentulous female patient with congenital cleft lip and palate, rehabilitated with a maxillary obturator and a mandibular complete denture. A defect in the hard palate causes nasal leakage and hypernasalization of speech. Velopharyngeal insufficiency due to a defect in the soft palate causes reflux during swallowing and decreased clarity of pronunciation.The anatomical structures, such as Passavant’s ridge, were considered to prevent respiratory problems when impression taking. We achieved satisfactory results including velopharyngeal closure for pronunciation, mastication, and swallowing, as well as improved aesthetics. Therefore, we report the process and considerations of the treatment.

This case report presents an 81-year-old edentulous female patient with congenital cleft lip and palate, rehabilitated with a maxillary obturator and a mandibular complete denture. A defect in the hard palate causes nasal leakage and hypernasalization of speech. Velopharyngeal insufficiency due to a defect in the soft palate causes reflux during swallowing and decreased clarity of pronunciation.The anatomical structures, such as Passavant’s ridge, were considered to prevent respiratory problems when impression taking. We achieved satisfactory results including velopharyngeal closure for pronunciation, mastication, and swallowing, as well as improved aesthetics. Therefore, we report the process and considerations of the treatment.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background/Aims: Guide tube-assisted endoscopy for procedures that require repeated endoscopic access is safer and more effective than conventional endoscopy. However, its effectiveness has not been confirmed in animal studies. We assessed the usefulness of guide tube-assisted endoscopic procedures in an in vivo porcine model. Methods: Five different guide tube-assisted endoscopic procedures were performed by experienced endoscopists on a pig weighing 32 kg. To evaluate the efficacy of these procedures, we compared the endoscopic approach time when a guide tube was used to that when it was not. Additional endoscopic procedures using a guide tube were performed, including multiple foreign body extractions, multiple polypectomies, and multiple submucosal dissections. To evaluate safety, we compared the insertion force into the proximal esophagus between the guide tube and conventional overtube methods. Results: Using the endoscopic approach with a guide tube required a shorter average approach time to reach the three target lesions than when using the endoscopic approach without a guide tube (p<0.001). Compared to the conventional overtube method, the guide tube method produced a lower average resistance during insertion into the upper esophagus (p<0.001). Conclusions Guide tube-assisted endoscopic procedures are effective and safe for repeated endoscopic access in an in vivo porcine model.