Background and Aim Because the risk of colorectal cancer has not been well examined in fecal immunochemistry test (FIT)‐positive patients who previously underwent colonoscopy, this study aimed to investigate this topic. Methods This was a single‐center, observational study of prospectively collected data in Japan. FIT‐positive, average‐risk patients who underwent colonoscopy were divided into groups as follows: those who never underwent colonoscopy in the past (no colonoscopy group), those with a history of colonoscopy between 6 months and 5 years (0.5‐ to 5‐year colonoscopy group), and those with a history of colonoscopy more than 5 years ago (> 5‐year colonoscopy group). We investigated the prevalence of advanced neoplasia and invasive cancer among these groups using multiple logistic regression analysis. Results Detection rates of advanced neoplasia in the no colonoscopy group, 0.5‐ to 5‐year colonoscopy group, and > 5‐year colonoscopy group were 14.8% (240/1626), 3.9% (13/330), and 6.9% (17/248), respectively. Detection rates of invasive cancer in each aforementioned group were 5.7% (92/1,626), 0.3% (1/330), and 1.2% (3/248), respectively. Odds ratios of advanced neoplasia in the 0.5‐ to 5‐year colonoscopy group and > 5‐year colonoscopy were 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13–0.42) and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.24–0.68), respectively, in multivariate analysis. The odds ratios of invasive cancer in each aforementioned group were 0.05 (95% CI: 0.01–0.37) and 0.19 (95% CI: 0.06–0.61), respectively. Conclusion Re‐screening with the FIT should not be recommended for at least 5 years for average‐risk patients after colonoscopy without high‐risk neoplasms, because the risks of colorectal cancer are low in such patients.

Background The usefulness of prophylactic biliary stenting for patients with common bile duct stones (CBDS) and gallstones (GS) to prevent recurrent biliary events after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and CBDS extraction before elective cholecystectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of recurrent CBDS around the perioperative period and clarify its risk factors. Methods The clinical data of all patients who received prophylactic biliary stenting after EST for CBDS and later underwent cholecystectomy for GS followed by stent extraction in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The numbers of residual CBDS at the end first and second endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) studies were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using a logistic regression model to determine risk factors for recurrent CBDS in the perioperative period. Results Forty-two consecutive patients received prophylactic biliary stenting and subsequent cholecystectomy for GS. Three of these patients were excluded from this study because the number of residual stones was not confirmed. The median maximum CBDS diameter at second ERC was 0 mm (range, 0 - 10 mm); six patients had multiple CBDS (≥ 5). The number of CBDS at second ERC was increased in comparison to that at the first ERC in 15 patients (38.4%), and was unchanged or decreased in 24 patients. The median minimum cystic duct diameter was 4 mm (range, 1 - 8 mm). The median interval between first ERC and operation was 26 days (range, 2 - 131 days). The median interval between operation and second ERC was 41 days (range, 26 - 96 days). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was performed in 38 patients, one of whom was converted from LC to open cholecystectomy. Postoperative complications (transient bacteremia) occurred in one patient. The cystic duct diameter was an independent risk factor for an increased number of CBDS at second ERC in the multivariate analysis (odds ratio 0.611 (95% confidence interval (0.398 - 0.939)), P = 0.03). Conclusion Recurrent CBDS around the perioperative period of cholecystectomy is not a rare complication after EST and the removal of CBDS with concomitant GS. Prophylactic biliary stenting is considered useful for preventing CBDS-associated complications, especially for patients in whom the cystic duct diameter is larger (≥ 5 mm).

No abstract

A 69-year-old man was referred to our department with acute hepatitis. He had been newly treated with benidipine hydrochloride for two months. His blood test results were as follows: aspartate aminotransferase, 1,614 IU/L; alanine aminotransferase, 1,091 IU/L and anti-smooth muscle antibody, ×80. Needle liver biopsy specimen showed interface hepatitis with mainly lymphocytic infiltration and bridging fibrosis in the periportal area. Immunohistochemistry revealed lymphocytic infiltration positive for IgG4. We diagnosed him with IgG4-related AIH with an etiology that was suspected of being drug-induced. Oral prednisolone was started and then tapered after achieving biochemical remission. Hepatitis recurred after the cessation of steroids; however, remission was achieved with ursodeoxycholic acid.

An 89-year-old woman who was bedridden suffered repeated vomiting due to superior mesenteric artery syndrome (SMAS). We performed gastrojejunostomy via the magnetic compression anastomosis (MCA) technique because her situation was not improved by conservative therapy and because the operative risk was high. We prepared two neodymium magnets: a flat plate-shaped magnet (15 × 3 mm) and a ring-shaped magnet of the same size. The ring-shaped magnet which passed through a guidewire was pushed to the duodenum by an endoscope over the guidewire. The duodenal stricture was balloon-dilated in front of the magnet, and the magnet was pushed all together beyond the stricture and placed at the duodenojejunal junction. Subsequently, the flat plate-shaped magnet was delivered endoscopically to the stomach using a biopsy forceps. The magnets were attracted towards each other transmurally after one more flat plate-shaped magnet was added to the gastric-side magnet. Completion of gastrojejunostomy was confirmed while retrieving the magnets 10 days after starting compression. She has been asymptomatic for 1 month since anastomosis. Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy using MCA was an effective, low-invasive treatment for SMAS.