Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is characterized by distal esophageal contraction amplitude of <30 mmHg on conventional manometry (Blonski et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 103(3):699-704, 2008), or a distal contractile integral (DCI) < 450 mmHg*s*cm on high-resolution manometry (HRM) (Kahrilas et al. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 27(2):160-74, 2015) in≥50 % of test swallows. IEM is the most common abnormality on esophageal manometry, with an estimated prevalence of 20-30 % (Tutuian and Castell Am J Gastroenterol. 99(6):1011-9, 2004; Conchillo et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 100(12):2624-32, 2005). Non-obstructive dysphagia has been considered to be frequently associated with severe esophageal peristaltic dysfunction. Defective bolus transit (DBT) on multichannel intraluminal impedance testing was found in more than half of IEM patients who presented with dysphagia (Tutuian and Castell Am J Gastroenterol. 99(6):1011-9, 2004), highlighting the functional defect of this manometric finding. Treatment of IEM has been challenging because of lack of promotility agents that have a definite effect on esophageal function.

Dysphagia is a fascinating symptom. It is ostensibly simple when defined by trouble swallowing, yet its subtleties in deciphering and its variations in pathophysiology almost mandate a thorough knowledge of medicine itself. With patience and careful questioning, a multitude of various disorders may be suggested before an objective test is performed. Indeed, the ability to diligently and comprehensively explore the symptom of dysphagia is not only rewarding but also a real test for a physician who prides himself or herself on good history taking.

No abstract

Objectives:Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is characterized by well-defined manometric criteria. However, much variation exists within the diagnosis: Some patients exhibit exactly the required five weak swallows to make the diagnosis. Others show consistently ineffective swallows with total absence of any normal swallow. “We hypothesize” there are two different manometric subtypes of IEM; IEM Alternans (IEM-A) and IEM Persistens (IEM-P).Methods:A total of 231 IEM patients were identified by high-resolution manometry (HRM). IEM defined by distal contractile integral (DCI) <450 mm Hg/s/cm in ≥50% of test swallows. Abnormal reflux study was defined by excess total number of reflux episodes, abnormal esophageal acid exposure, or positive symptom association.Results:A total of 195 (84%) patients had IEM-A and 36 (16%) had IEM-P. A striking gender difference with 34% of IEM-A being males compared to 53% of IEM-P. (P=0.03). Mean age of IEM-P (59.6 years+/−13.1) was greater than IEM-A (55.5 years+/−13.6) (P=0.04). Mean lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure was significantly lower in IEM-P (20.8 mm Hg+/−1.4) than IEM-A (29 mm Hg+/−1.2) (P=0.002). There was no difference in LES-integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), bolus transit, or manometric presence of hiatal hernia between the two groups. Out of 146, 89 (61%) patients had abnormal reflux study. Esophageal acid exposure in upright position was significantly higher in IEM-P than IEM-A (3.5 vs. 1.7%, P=0.04). Poor gastric acid control on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was more prevalent among IEM-P patients (58%) than IEM-A (27%) (P=0.007). In subgroup analysis of 41 IEM patients with dysphagia, DCI for liquid swallows was significantly lower in IEM-P (111+/−142 mm Hg/s/cm) compared to IEM-A (421+/−502 mm Hg/s/cm) (P=0.04), lower mean LES resting pressure in IEM-P (16.6+/−9 mm Hg) than IEM-A (31.7+/−18 mm Hg) (P=0.01).Conclusions:There are two distinct manometric IEM subtypes; IEM-P with an older male predominance, more advanced reflux disease, weaker LES, and worse response to PPI; likely a more advanced manifestation than IEM-A. However, the question if there are different etiologies underlying the two subtypes remains to be answered.

Background: Laparoscopy-assisted surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) was first described in 1991 and robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for CRC was first reported in 2002; robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular. However, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Our primary goal was to review the mortality outcome difference between laparoscopic versus robotic elective colon resection at a small, community hospital. Study design: We conducted a retrospective review of 2089 patients at the South Atlantic division for cases who underwent robotic and laparoscopic colectomies at our division in 2014-2018. All cases were elective surgeries and analysis was performed within these two subgroups. Results: In this study, 306 patients underwent robotic colorectal surgery versus 1783 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery. Readmission rate within 30 days of operation was significantly lower for laparoscopic-assisted colorectal resection (LACR) versus RACS (445.4% vs. 53.9%, p= 0.006). However, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for RACS with a median of three days (interquartile range {IQR}: 2-5) versus four days (IQR: 3-7) for LACR (p=0.0001). There were no significant differences between the two groups for post-operative incisional hernias, anastomotic leaks, post-operative pain control, surgical site infections, or rate of conversion to an open procedure. Conclusion: Our study showed a similar outcome between LACR and RACS for post-operative incisional hernias, anastomotic leaks, post-operative pain control, surgical site infections, and rate of conversion to an open procedure. Also, our study showed a readmission rate within 30 days of operation was significantly lower for LACR versus RACS. However, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for RACS with a median of three days when compared to LACR. Future research should focus on surgeon-specific variables, such as comfort, ergonomics, distractibility, and ease of use, as other ways to potentially distinguish robotic from laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

HighlightsRenal cell carcinoma metastases to the gastrointestinal tract (excluding the liver) accounts for about (0.2 − 0.7)% of RCC.RCC metastases to the gastrointestinal tract may occur years after resection of RCC.The tyrosine kinase inhibitor Sunitinib has also been shown to have survival benefits for patients with RCC metastasis.Vascular-endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as the mTOR-signaling pathway have been used as a treatment for RCC metastasis with good results.Use of VCE and push enteroscopy are of beneficial value in the diagnosis of obscure GI bleeding.

Prolonged FT during ERCP is associated most strongly with intrahepatic cases. FT can be used most effectively as a quality measure if it is stratified according to presence or absence of intrahepatic cases.

There is paucity in the literature on the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for evaluating the thyroid gland. We report the first case of primary papillary thyroid cancer diagnosed by using EUS and fine needle aspiration (FNA). A 66-year-old man underwent EUS for the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. FNA of the lymph nodes showed benign findings. A hypoechoic mass was noted in the right lobe of the thyroid gland. Therefore, FNA was performed. The cytological results were consistent with primary papillary thyroid cancer.