Same-day colonoscopy preparation with Senna alkaloids and bisacodyl tablets: A pilot study

Low volume polyethylene glycol combined with senna versus high volume polyethylene glycol, which regimen is better for bowel preparation for colonoscopy? A randomized, controlled, and single‐blinded trial

Background and Aims

Bowel preparation affects the quality of colonoscopy. Reaching the optimal preparation has been a challenge for years. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the sole FDA‐approved substance for this purpose. However, patients find it unpleasant and often complain about its adverse effects. In this study, we aimed to reduce these complaints by lowering the amount of PEG and adding senna which is an herbal stimulant laxative.

Methods

Four hundred and eighty‐six patients were admitted for colonoscopy. Finally, 382 patients were enrolled in the study and we divided them into two groups; 186 patients were placed in which conventional high volume PEG‐alone regimen was consumed and 196 patients in which low volume PEG plus senna regimen was offered. The quality of colon preparation was compared between the two groups by independent two samples t‐test (or its corresponding nonparametric test), Fisher's exact, or χ² test in SPSS software version 22.

Results

The colon preparation quality was equally efficient in the two groups as 69.36% in the high volume PEG group and 71.94% in PEG plus senna group had adequate bowel preparation (p = 0.58). Adverse effects, like nausea, bloating, headache, and sleeplessness were significantly less in the low volume PEG plus senna group.

Conclusion

Besides the fact that bowel preparation by low volume PEG plus senna combination was noninferior to the conventional high volume PEG‐alone regimen, the side effects were much less common with the low volume PEG plus senna regimen.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in children and adults: How do they differ?

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has grown dramatically over the past century, and with subsequent improvements in technology and anaesthesia, it has become a safe and useful tool for evaluation of GI pathology in children. There are substantial differences between paediatric and adult endoscopy beyond size, including: age-related patho-physiology and the different spectrum of diseases in children. Literature on endoscopic procedures in children is sparse but significant. The present review aims at describing the current knowledges on paediatric endoscopy practice and highlights the main areas of differences between paediatric and adult practice.

The Efficacy and Safety of Combined Senna and Probiotic-Based Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Children

Background and objective

Bowel preparation (BP) is a major determinant of accurate and successful colonoscopy and its outcomes in children and adults. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a senna alkaloid and probiotic-based BP in children undergoing elective colonoscopy.

Methods

Children aged 2-15 years who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) and colonoscopy for various indications from December 2018 to May 2019 at the Apollo Children’s Hospital who were prescribed a senna and probiotic-based [Bacillus coagulans (B. coagulans)] preparation before the procedure were included in the study. The effectiveness of the bowel preparation was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Safety assessment was performed by recording adverse events in the study.

Results

Successful bowel preparation was observed in all patients according to BBPS, and the mean BBPS score was 2.93 ±0.25, indicating good bowel clearance. About 29 (96.67%) patients showed accessible terminal ileum. There were no major side effects reported in the study. The formulation was found to be palatable and acceptable by 100% of patients.

Conclusion

The study revealed the administration of the novel BP to be effective and safe in children undergoing elective colonoscopy for various indications.

Effect and Tolerability of Same-Day Repeat Colonoscopy

Purpose/Aim of the study: The main purpose of the colonoscopy is screening for colorectal cancers and diagnosis of colorectal disease The cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy directly depend on the adequate bowel preparation. Inadequate colonoscopy is recommended to be re-scheduled within 1 year. Re-scheduling is an economic and patient burden. Thus instead of re-scheduling, another strategy may be attempted. The purpose of this study was to examine the usefulness and effect of the same day repeat colonoscopy after administration of an additional laxative dose. Materials and Methods: Patients with inadequate colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. The patients eligible for the enrollment were instructed to consume an additional laxative and scheduled in afternoon. The demographic data of the patient, the details of the index and repeat procedures were obtained by a questionnaire. Results: A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the study. The rate of adequate colonoscopy was 80%. Cecum intubation rate was 83.3%. There were no complications due to colonoscopy itself and additional laxatives. The polyp detection rate was 26.6%. The withdrawal time was 6.7 ± 1.34 min. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed that same day repeat colonoscopy with additional laxative dose can be a safe and effective method for repeat procedure of an inadequate colonoscopy. The patients tolerated and were satisfied with the same day protocol. Quality indicators of colonoscopy such as adenoma detection rate and cecum intubation rate were achieved. Same day bowel cleansing method may be considered as an alternative way rather than re-scheduling inadequate colonoscopy for a later time.

Posterior sagittal anorectoplasty in vestibular fistula: with or without colostomy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare the results and complications of one- and three-stage repairs in females with vestibular fistula (VF) and make contribution to the discussion of whether the disadvantages outweigh the protective effect of a colostomy from wound infection and wound dehiscence following posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP).

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of VF who underwent PSARP between October 2009 and November 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: Group 1-patients treated by one-stage procedure (n = 30); Group 2-patients treated by three-stage procedure (n = 16).

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to wound infection, recurrence of fistula and rectal mucosal prolapse. Minor wound dehiscence occurred slightly more common in Group 1, even if p value is not significant. No wound dehiscence has been observed since we switched to the protocol of keeping the child nil per oral for 5 postoperative days and loperamide (0.1 mg/kg) administration for 7 postoperative days. The mean time before resuming oral intake was 2.87 ± 1.7 and 1.19 ± 0.4 days in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively (p = 0.001). None developed major wound disruption or anal stenosis in either group. There were no statistical differences between the groups in terms of voluntary bowel movements, soiling and constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

PSARP performed without a protective colostomy in patients with VF has low morbidity, good continence rates and obvious advantages for both the patients and their parents.

Two low-dose bowel-cleansing regimens: efficacy and safety of senna and sodium phosphorus solution for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy, adequacy, side effects, and patient compliance of sodium phosphorus (NaP) and senna solutions when preparing the colon before colonoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 137 consecutive patients who were considered for colonoscopy evaluation had randomly received one of two premeditated regimens: 90 mL of oral NaP (NaP group) or 500 mL of 1,000 mg of sennosides A and B calcium +66.6 g of sorbitol (senna group). Patients' compliance with the bowel-cleansing method was determined using a questionnaire prior to the colonoscopic examination. On the other hand, the adequacy of the bowel-cleansing method was evaluated by the colonoscopist who was blind to the bowel-cleansing regimen used prior to the examination of the colon from the rectum to the cecum.

RESULTS

Nausea and vomiting complaints were seen more frequently in the NaP group than in the senna group (47 vs 28 and 31 vs 10; P<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively). The response to the question of whether the patients would like to use the same regimen again or not was similar in both groups. The acceptable bowel-cleansing rate was also comparable across both groups. Nevertheless, the number of patients that experienced excellent bowel cleansing in terms of general appraisal of the colonoscopic evaluation was significantly greater in the NaP group than in the senna group (46 vs 25; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although bowel cleansing was better in the NaP group, both cleansing regimens were comparable regarding the admissibility of the preparations for the procedure. The senna regimen is, however, superior to the NaP regimen in terms of application compliance and its side effects, and it may be an effective alternative for cleansing the bowel prior to colonoscopic examination.