The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in choledochal cysts and/or abnormal pancreatobiliary junction in children

Introduction : Biliary cysts with an abnormal pancreatobiliary junction are one of the most common pancreatobiliary malformations. The main symptom is cholestasis; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plays a key role in diagnosis. Aim : Retrospective evaluation of ERCP performed to diagnose abnormalities of the pancreatobiliary junction. Material and methods : We retrospectively evaluated ERCP performed to diagnose abnormalities of the pancreatobiliary junction, mainly choledochal cysts, in 112 children between 1990 and 2011. Results : We performed 112 examinations of 50 children with abnormal pancreatobiliary junction and choledochal cysts (15 males and 35 females, average age: 5 years, range: 1 month – 15 years). Cysts were associated with a common channel in 37 (74%) cases, were not associated with a common channel in 9 (18%) cases, and in 3 (6%) cases the common channel lacked cysts. We performed endoscopic papilla sphincterotomy on 33 (66%) patients; endoscopic drainage was performed 62 times, including 17 patients without papilla sphincterotomy. In 15 (30%) cases, we only performed sphincterotomy. Extraction of lithiasis was done in 2 (4%) cases. Both ERCP and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) were performed on 13 patients. There was concordance of the choledochal cyst and of the type of cyst in both methods; however, common channels could not be observed by MRCP. There was 1 serious complication (perforation after sphincterotomy) and 11 (9%) mild adverse events. Conclusions : When performed at an expert centre, ECRP is a safe and reliable procedure for children with choledochal cysts and/or an abnormal pancreatobiliary junction. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography remains a reasonable alternative because MRCP has a limited ability to diagnose the precise anomalies of the pancreatobiliary junction and has no therapeutic capabilities

Efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease on immunosuppressive and biological therapy: Prospective observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: SARS-CoV-2 is a worldwide serious health problem and vaccination seems to have a crucial role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this prospective observational study was to monitor the trend of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination with BNT162b2 (COMIRNATY) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated by immunosuppressive and/or biological therapy, demonstrate whether any type of this therapy is associated with poorer production of antibodies against COVID-19 and evaluate the safety of vaccination against COVID-19 in these patients. METHODS: Eighty-seven eligible patients from one tertiary gastroenterological center with inflammatory bowel disease (60 with CD, 27 with UC) treated by immunosuppressive and/or biological therapy from the antiTNFα group were indicated to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Effectiveness of vaccination was evaluated by the values of antibodies before and 4 weeks after 2nd dose of vaccine. Additional goal was to evaluate adverse events of vaccination. RESULTS: Before the 2nd dose of vaccine, geometric mean of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies were 40.7 U/ml in the biological therapy group, 34.8 U/ml in the azathioprine group and 44.8 U/ml in the combination therapy group of patients. The geometric means were 676.5.7 U/ml in the biological therapy group, 614.4 U/ml in the azathioprine group and 500.1 U/ml in the combination therapy group of patients four weeks after 2nd dose. Statistically significant differences between these groups were not proved. Several non-severe local and general adverse events were present in our patients with a majority of these events on the day of vaccine administration and the day after, no anaphylactic reactions were present. CONCLUSIONS: Our measurements proved the efficacy and safety of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated by immunosuppressive and/or biological therapy. Statistically significant differences between our groups of patients were not proved

Comparison of the BMI of patients with simple cholelithiasis who did not undergo ERCP (ERCP 0) with that of the control group.

<p>Comparison of the BMI of patients with simple cholelithiasis who did not undergo ERCP (ERCP 0) with that of the control group.</p

Comparison of patients with cholelithiasis with the anthropometric data of the Czech Republic.

<p>Comparison of patients with cholelithiasis with the anthropometric data of the Czech Republic.</p

Comparison of the BMI of patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent the ERCP procedure (ERCP 1) with that of the control group.

<p>Comparison of the BMI of patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent the ERCP procedure (ERCP 1) with that of the control group.</p

Age range of the operated patients.

<p>Age range of the operated patients.</p