These cross-sectional analyses offer promising evidence that this common condition is correlated with the presence of certain conditions (e.g., stroke and diabetes) and use of certain psychoactive medications.
There is marked variation in endoscopists' ability to accurately size adenomatous polyps. Some endoscopists rarely mis-size adenomas, and their surveillance recommendations are appropriate in regard to sizing. However, other endoscopists inaccurately size adenomas, and this leads to inappropriate surveillance of colorectal polyps. In this study, approximately 1 of 3 included polypectomies yielded inappropriate surveillance recommendations because of clinical mis-sizing.
With the development of reliable endoscopic closure techniques and tools, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is emerging as a therapeutic option for the treatment of subepithelial tumors and epithelial neoplasia with significant fibrosis. EFTR may be categorized as “exposed” and “nonexposed.” In exposed EFTR, the full-thickness resection is undertaken with a tunneled or nontunneled technique, with subsequent closure of the defect. In nonexposed EFTR, a secure serosa-to-serosa apposition is achieved before full-thickness resection of the isolated lesion. This document reviews current techniques and devices used for EFTR and reviews clinical applications and outcomes.
OBJECTIVES:Bowel preparations (BPs) taken before colonoscopy may introduce a confounding effect on the results of gastrointestinal microbiota studies. This study aimed to determine the effect of bowel preparation on the mucosa-associated and luminal colonic microbiota in healthy subjects (HC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients.METHODS:Biopsy samples (n=36) and fecal samples (n=30) were collected from 10 HC and 8 IBD subjects pre- and post-BP. 16S rRNA gene was pyrosequenced using 454 Titanium protocols. We compared the differences between the pre- and post-BP samples (i.e., comparisons-across-bowel-prep); we examined the effect of BP on the expected separation of the mucosal vs. the luminal compartments (i.e., comparisons-across-compartments). Last, we compared the baseline differences between the HC vs. IBD groups (a secondary analysis), and examined whether the differences between the HC vs. IBD changed after BP.RESULTS:In comparisons-across-bowel-prep, the Shannon's index (SI) decreased only in the biopsy samples of IBD subjects post-BP (P=0.025) and phylogenetic diversity-whole tree (PD-WT) metric decreased in biopsy samples of HC subjects post-BP (P=0.021). In secondary comparisons, the subtle differences between the fecal samples of the HC vs. IBD groups, in terms of evenness and the SI, were not apparent post-BP. In terms of β-diversity, in comparisons-across-bowel-prep, the proportion of shared operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in pre- and post-BP samples was low (~30%) and unweighted Unifrac distances between pre- and post-BP specimens ranged from 0.52 to 0.66. HC biopsies were affected more than IBD biopsies with BP (P=0.004). In comparisons-across-compartments, the proportion of shared OTUs between biopsy and fecal samples increased and Unifrac distances decreased post-BP in IBD subjects, reducing the differences between the mucosal and luminal compartments of the gut microbiota. Interindividual differences in Unifrac distances were preserved even with BP effects, although the effects were greater on weighted Unifrac distances. Bacteroidetes and its subtypes increased post-BP in both the luminal and mucosal compartments.CONCLUSIONS:Bowel preparations affect the composition and diversity of the fecal and luminal microbiota in the short term, introducing potential bias into experiments examining the gut microbiota. The magnitude of the effect of BP is not greater than that of interindividual variation. Both the luminal and mucosal compartments of the gut microbiota get affected, and samples from controls and IBD subjects may get affected differently. Studies of the colonic microbiota should take into account the direction and the magnitude of the change introduced by BP during the design stage of the experiments, and consider sample sizes so that potential bias is minimized.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.