Background and Aims. Simethicone (SIM), as an antifoaming agent, has been shown to improve bowel preparation during colonoscopy. However, the optimal timing of SIM addition remained undetermined. We aimed to investigate the optimal timing of SIM addition to polyethylene glycol (PEG) to improve bowel preparation. Methods. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to two groups: the SIM evening group (SIM addition to PEG in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy) and the SIM morning group (SIM addition to PEG in the morning of colonoscopy). The primary outcome was Bubble Scale (BS). The secondary outcomes were Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results. A total of 419 patients were enrolled in this study. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. No significant differences were observed in terms of BS (8.76 ± 0.90 vs. 8.65 ± 1.16, P  = 0.81), ADR (34.1% vs. 30.8%, P  = 0.47), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (8.59 ± 0.94 vs. 8.45 ± 1.00, P  = 0.15), and withdrawal time (8.22 ± 2.04 vs. 8.01 ± 2.51, P  = 0.094) between the two groups. Moreover, safety and compliance were similar in both groups. However, the SIM evening group was associated with shorter cecal intubation time (3.80 ± 1.81 vs. 4.42 ± 2.03, P  < 0.001), higher BS (2.95 ± 0.26 vs. 2.88 ± 0.38, P  = 0.04) in the right colon, and diminutive ADR (62.5% vs. 38.6%, P  = 0.022) in the right colon, when compared to the SIM evening group. Conclusions. The SIM addition to PEG in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy can shorten cecal intubation time and improve BS scores and diminutive ADR of the right colon compared with the SIM addition to PEG in the morning of colonoscopy in bowel preparation.

Background and Aim. Obesity has been linked to incomplete colonoscopy. In the present study, we aimed to determine whether an abdominal compression bandage could improve the complete colonoscopy rate (CCR) of obese patients. Methods. Eligible patients were randomly allocated into the abdominal bandage and conventional groups during a routine colonoscopy. The primary outcome was CCR. Results. A total of 250 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the abdominal bandage and conventional groups from January 2021 to April 2021. Eleven patients (five in the abdominal bandage group and six in the conventional group) were excluded due to schedule cancellation after randomization, and 239 patients were eventually included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding baseline characteristics (P > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in terms of advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), bowel preparation scale (BBPS), bubble scale (BS), and withdrawal time between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, compared with the conventional group, the cecal insertion time (CIT) of the abdominal bandage group was significantly shortened (279.00 (234.50–305.75) vs. 421.00 (327.00–485.00), P < 0.001), and the CCR (96.7% vs. 88.2%, P = 0.01) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) (47.5% vs. 32.8%, P < 0.001) were improved. Besides, logistic regression analysis showed that body mass index (BMI) and abdominal compression bandage were associated with CCR. Conclusions. Abdominal compression bandages could effectively shorten CIT and improve CCR and ADR for obese patients during a routine colonoscopy. This trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2100043556).

BACKGROUND Esophageal stenosis is one of the main complications of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of large-area superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and precancerous lesions (≥ 3/4 of the lumen). Oral prednisone is useful to prevent esophageal stenosis, but the curative effect remains controversial. AIM To share our experience of the precautions against esophageal stenosis after ESD to remove large superficial esophageal lesions. METHODS Between June 2019 and March 2022, we enrolled patients with large superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia experienced who underwent ESD. Prednisone (50 mg/d) was administered orally on the second morning after ESD for 1 mo, and tapered gradually (5 mg/wk) for 13 wk. RESULTS In total, 14 patients met the inclusion criteria. All patients received ESD without operation-related bleeding or perforation. There were 11 patients with ≥ 3/4 and < 7/8 of lumen mucosal defects and 1 patient with ≥ 7/8 of lumen mucosal defect and 2 patients with the entire circumferential mucosal defects due to ESD. The longitudinal extension of the esophageal mucosal defect was < 50 mm in 3 patients and ≥ 50 mm in 11 patients. The esophageal stenosis rate after ESD was 0% (0/14). One patient developed esophageal candida infection on the 30 th d after ESD, and completely recovered after 7 d of administration of oral fluconazole 100 mg/d. No other adverse events of oral steroids were found. CONCLUSION Oral prednisone (50 mg/d) and prolonged prednisone usage time may effectively prevent esophageal stricture after ESD without increasing the incidence of glucocorticoid-related adverse events. However, further investigation of larger samples is required to warrant feasibility and safety.