No abstract

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic 5min before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

-Background -Confirmation of malignancy within biliary strictures is endoscopically challenging. Dilation of strictures has been reported to enhance cytological diagnosis. Aim -To compare brush cytology results before and after biliary stricture dilation. Patients and Methods -Patients with extra-hepatic biliary stricture at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were included in the study. Brushing was performed before and immediately after dilation using a 10 Fr dilating catheter. Cytology samples were classified as: negative for malignancy, presence of atypical cells, insufficient material, suspicious for malignancy or positive for malignancy. Final diagnosis was established by surgery, biopsy or followup. Results -Biliary brush cytology was performed in 50 patients, with an overall sensitivity of 40% and 27.5%, before and after dilation, respectively. The combination of results increased cancer detection rate to 45%. There were 5/50 (10%) minor complications and one death related to the procedure. Conclusions -Brush cytology performed before biliary stricture dilation has a similar cancer detection rate to that following dilation, although the combination of results enhances sensitivity.

Malignant melanoma is responsible for about 1% of all deaths caused by cancer in the USA and only 3% of all malignant skin diseases. Malignant melanoma is a rare disease, although it corresponds to 65% of all deaths caused by skin cancer. The liver and spleen are rarely the first sites of melanoma metastases. This paper reports on the clinical picture of a patient with fatal malignant melanoma and hepatic and spleen metastases. As this was an un-usual presentation, the melanoma diagnosis could only be made after pathological analysis of the skin and hepatic lesions.

We concluded that rapid urease test can be stored in refrigerator for up to 1 week, without loss of clinical applicability, and that can make the test even easier to use for routine Helicobacter pylori tests in a busy endoscopy unit.

No abstract

On the base of the presented data, we concluded that conventional video colonoscopes and contrast chromoscopy with indigo carmine solution is not a good technique for differential diagnosis of colon polyps.

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic five minutes before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.