Platelet-activating factor mediates trinitrobenzene induced dysmotility in the left colon

We investigated whether TNB alters colonic tissue levels of PAF at the expense of changes in colonic motility in the isolated perfused rabbit left colon. Colonic inflammation was induced by the intracolonic administration of 0.25 ml of 50% ethanol containing 30 mg of trinitrobenzene. Strain gauge transducers were sewn onto the serosal surface of the colon to evaluate colonic motility. TNB administration increased tissue levels of PAF and increased the average force of each colonic contraction. Pretreatment with the PAF receptor antagonist WEB-2170 prior to TNB infusion decreased tissue concentrations of PAF and ameliorated the altered motility parameters seen with TNB alone. These results suggest that PAF is stimulated by TNB and may participate in colonic dysmotility during inflammatory states

Clostridium difficile suppresses colonic vasoactive intestinal peptide associated with altered motility

We investigated whether Clostridium difficile toxin alters colonic tissue levels of vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) at the expense of changes in colonic motility in the isolated perfused rabbit left colon. Colonic inflammation was induced by the intracolonic administration of 10−8 M C. difflcile toxin. Strain gauge transducers were sewn onto the serosal surface of the colon to evaluate colonic motility. C. difflcile administration produced histologic changes consistent with epithelial damage. This was associated with an increased production of prostaglandin E2 and thromboxane B2. Tissue levels of VIP but not substance P were significantly reduced. This was associated with an increased number of contractions per minute and an average force of each colonic contraction. These results suggest that tissue levels of VIP are suppressed by C. difflcile and may participate in colonic dysmotility during active inflammation

Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline

BACKGROUND: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of follow-up on colorectal cancer patient survival and, in a second phase, recommendations were developed. METHODS: The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the 1997 to 2002 proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Study selection was limited to randomized trials and meta-analyses that examined different programs of follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer where five-year overall survival was reported. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. RESULTS: Six randomized trials and two published meta-analyses of follow-up were obtained. Of six randomized trials comparing one follow-up program to a more intense program, only two individual trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit favouring the more intense follow-up program. Pooling of all six randomized trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival favouring more intense follow-up (Relative Risk Ratio 0.80 (95%CI, 0.70 to 0.91; p = 0.0008). Although the rate of recurrence was similar in both of the follow-up groups compared, asymptomatic recurrences and re-operations for cure of recurrences were more common in patients with more intensive follow-up. Trials including CEA monitoring and liver imaging also had significant results, whereas trials not including these tests did not. CONCLUSION: Follow-up programs for patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer do improve survival. These follow-up programs include frequent visits and performance of blood CEA, chest x-rays, liver imaging and colonoscopy, however, it is not clear which tests or frequency of visits is optimal. There is a suggestion that improved survival is due to diagnosis of recurrence at an earlier, asymptomatic stage which allows for more curative resection of recurrence. Based on this evidence and consideration of the biology of colorectal cancer and present practices, a guideline was developed. Patients should be made aware of the risk of disease recurrence or second bowel cancer, the potential benefits of follow-up and the uncertainties requiring further clinical trials. For patients at high-risk of recurrence (stages IIb and III) clinical assessment is recommended when symptoms occur or at least every 6 months the first 3 years and yearly for at least 5 years. At the time of those visits, patients may have blood CEA, chest x-ray and liver imaging. For patients at lower risk of recurrence (stages I and Ia) or those with co-morbidities impairing future surgery, only visits yearly or when symptoms occur. All patients should have a colonoscopy before or within 6 months of initial surgery, and repeated yearly if villous or tubular adenomas >1 cm are found; otherwise repeat every 3 to 5 years. All patients having recurrences should be assessed by a multidisciplinary team in a cancer centre

Is routine pouchogram prior to ileostomy closure in colonic J-pouch really necessary?

Colonic J-pouch with coloanal anastomosis has gained popularity in the surgical treatment of middle and lower rectal pathologies. If a diverting ileostomy is performed, a pouchogram is frequently performed prior to ileostomy closure. The aim of this study was to assess the routine use of pouchogram prior to ileostomy closure in patients with colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis

The effect of diverticular disease on the colonic J pouch

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the diverticular disease (DD) on function and on postoperative complications of the colonic J-pouch (CJP) with pouch-anal anastomosis