No abstract

Background:Advantage of using local sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is still challenging. In the current study, the effect of lidocaine spray versus lidocaine viscous solution for pharyngeal local anesthesia during UGE has been compared.Materials and Methods:This is a randomized clinical trial conducted on 130 patients conducting UGE in 2013. Patients were randomly divided into two groups of viscous lidocaine solution (Group V) and lidocaine spray (Group S). Patients’ tolerance, satisfaction, pain/discomfort, and anxiety (based on 11-point numerical score scale) and ease of endoscopy were compared.Results:Ease of procedure, patients’ tolerance, and patients’ satisfaction were not statistically different between two groups (P > 0.05). Patients’ pain/discomfort and anxiety during endoscopy were significantly different between groups (P < 0.05).Conclusion:As a conclusion, there was not any difference between two groups except for pain, discomfort, and anxiety that was higher in those who administered spray that might be due to the method of usage.

Background: Colonoscopy plays a vital role for the diagnosis and treatment of colonic diseases but can be associated with anxiety and discomfort or pain. We tested whether unsedated colonoscopy impacts quality indicators and investigated predictors of pain during colonoscopy. Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial was performed on candidates for elective colonoscopy at AL Zahra Hospital, Isfahan at 2018–2019. Balanced block randomization was used to allocate 275 cases into two groups. At finally, 124 patients in case and 122 patients in control group enrolled in analysis. Patients in the sedation group received midazolam with/out pethidine before colonoscopy. Pain intensity in rectal examination (PIREX), preprocedural anxiety, pain intensity during colonoscopy, hemodynamics, duration of colonoscopy, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, bloating within 24 h after colonoscopy, and willingness to repeat colonoscopy were assessed and compared between two groups. Results: Compared to the group with sedation, cecal intubation time was shorter and bloating was less frequent (7% vs. 16%, P = 0.02) in the unsedated group. There was no difference between the two groups regarding polyp detection rate, cecal detection rate, and willingness to repeat colonoscopy. Pain during rectal examination was significantly associated with pain during colonoscopy ( P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval; 0.5–1.3). Conclusion: The assessment of pain intensity during rectal examination may help to identify patients who can benefit from sedation during colonoscopy. Colonoscopy with sedation does not seem to have a negative impact on colonoscopy quality indicators, and may even reduce cecal intubation time and bloating following procedure.

BACKGROUND Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) is the mildest type of hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis. Patients with MHE have normal clinical and physical examination but they show some neurocognitive dysfunctions that affect their quality of life negatively. The aim of the current study is to diagnose MHE in patients with cirrhosis and its associated factors. METHODS This is a cross-sectional study on 120 known cases of cirrhosis referred to hospitals affiliated to Isfahan University of Medical Sciences during 2014-17. The patients’ cirrhosis severity was evaluated using laboratory tests and physical examinations based on MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) and Child-Pugh criteria. The patients’ demographics were filled in a checklist. All included patients with cirrhosis were asked to respond to the questions of Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score (PHES) test. RESULTS Mean age of the patients was 51.2 ± 9.7 years. 62 (51.7%) patients were men and 58 (48.3%) patients were women. The mean score of the patients based on MELD criteria was 14.03 ± 6.09. 26.7% of the patients presented MHE. Mean age of the patients with MHE was statistically less than the patients without MHE (p value < 0.001). Mean score of MELD criteria among the patients with diagnosis of MHE was significantly higher than the other group (p value < 0.001). The patients’ Child class was statistically associated with MHE (p value < 0.001). Men were significantly more affected than women (p value = 0.03). CONCLUSION MHE was associated with MELD score and Child class of the patients with cirrhosis. The noticeable point was reversible association of age with MHE. Further studies are recommended.

Background:Spleen is the most common viscera that may be hurt in blunt abdominal trauma. Operative or nonoperative management of splenic injury is a dilemma. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) is the most common grading system which has been used for the management of blunt splenic injuries. The new recommended grading system assesses other aspects of splenic injury such as contrast extravasation, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, and severity of hemoperitoneum, as well. The aim of this study is to compare and prioritize the cutoff of AAST grading system with the new recommended one.Materials and Methods:This is a cross-sectional study on patients with splenic injury caused by abdominal blunt trauma referred to Isfahan University of Medical Sciences affiliated Hospitals, Iran, in 2013–2016. All patients underwent abdominopelvic computed tomography scanning with intravenous (IV) contrast. All images were reported by a single expert radiologist, and splenic injury grading was reported based on AAST and the new recommended system. Then, all patients were followed to see if they needed surgical or nonsurgical management.Results:Based on the findings of this study conducted on 68 patients, cutoff point of Grade 2, in AAST system, had 90.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73–0.97) specificity, 51.4% (95% CI: 0.34–0.67) sensitivity, 86.4% (95% CI: 0.64–0.95) positive predictive value (PPV), and 60.9% (95% CI: 0.45–0.74) negative predictive value (NPV) for prediction of surgical management requirement, while it was 90.3% (95% CI: 0.73–0.97) specificity, 45.9% (95% CI: 0.29–0.63) sensitivity, 85% (95% CI: 0.61–0.96) PPV, and 58.3% (95% CI: 0.43–0.72) NPV for the new system (P = 0.816).Conclusion:In contrast to the previous studies, the new splenic injury grading method was not superior to AAST. Further studies with larger populations are recommended.