Giovanni Leonetti

Should the host reaction to anisakiasis influence the treatment? Different clinical presentations in two cases

Gastrointestinal anisakiasis is a parasitic infection occurring in people that consume raw or inadequately cooked fish or squid. It is frequently characterized by severe epigastric pain, nausea and vomiting caused by the penetration of the larvae into the gastric wall. Acute gastric anisakiasis with severe chest discomfort is rarely reported in Italy. On the other hand, gastro-allergic anisakiasis with rash, urticaria and isolated angioedema or anaphylaxis is a clinical entity that has been described only recently. Also, if patients usually develop symptoms within 12 hours after raw seafood ingestion, not always endoscopic exploration can promptly identify the Anisakis larvae. Moreover, some authors consider the prevailing allergic reaction as a natural and effective defense against the parasitic attack. We report two cases of peculiar manifestations of anisakiasis in both acute and chronic forms (severe chest discomfort and anaphylactoid reaction).

A Retrospective Case-Control Study Evaluating the Bowel Preparation Quality during Surveillance Colonoscopy after Colonic Resection

Purpose. Bowel preparation for surveillance endoscopy following surgery can be impaired by suboptimal bowel function. Our study compares two groups of patients in order to evaluate the influence of colorectal resection on bowel preparation. Methods. From April 2010 to December 2011, 351 patients were enrolled in our retrospective study and divided into two homogeneous arms: resection group (RG) and control group. Surgical methods were classified as left hemicolectomy, right hemicolectomy, anterior rectal resection, and double colonic resection. Bowel cleansing was evaluated by nine skilled endoscopists using the Aronchick scale. Results. Among the 161 patients of the RG, surgery was as follows: 60 left hemicolectomies (37%), 62 right hemicolectomies (38%), and 33 anterior rectal resections (20%). Unsatisfactory bowel preparation was significantly higher in resected population (44% versus 12%; P value = 0.000). No significant difference (38% versus 31%, P value = ns) was detected in the intermediate score, which represents a fair quality of bowel preparation. Conclusions. Our study highlights how patients with previous colonic resection are at high risk for a worse bowel preparation. Currently, the intestinal cleansing carried out by 4 L PEG based preparation does not seem to be sufficient to achieve the quality parameters required for the post-resection endoscopic monitoring.

Is long-lasting mucosal elevation the only valid parameter when evaluating a lifting agent?

begs some questions. Although the limitations of the lifting agent have been correctly identified by the authors, it would be useful to know the timing and details of the procedures used for preparation of blood, plasma, and serum. The quality of the agent used suggests that it behaves, in terms of viscosity and transparency, like a hematoma at the time of endoscopic resection. Thus, endoscopic visibility for detecting the mucosal layers may be affected by the lifting agent, especially when the amount of fluid used exceeds 1 4mL. Rightly, the authors emphasize that methylene or toluidine blue colorants can be used during submucosal resection without impairing visibility. However, they also have the advantage of highlighting the different wall layers according to different rates of absorption, and they are used in a strong concentration.As demonstrated by other studies,