Rectal enema is an alternative to full mechanical bowel preparation for primary rectal cancer surgery.

AIM: According to the French GRECCAR III randomized trial, full mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) for rectal surgery decreases the rate of postoperative morbidity, in particular postoperative infectious complications, but MBP is not well tolerated by the patient. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a preoperative rectal enema (RE) might be an alternative to MBP. METHODS: An analysis was performed of 96 matched cohort patients undergoing rectal resection with primary anastomosis and protective ileostomy at two different university teaching hospitals, whose rectal cancer management was comparable except for the choice of preoperative bowel preparation (MBP or RE). Prospective databases were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: Patients were well matched for age, gender, body mass index and Charlson index. The surgical approach and cancer characteristics (level above anal verge, stage and use of neoadjuvant therapy) were comparable between the two groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 10% of patients having MBP and in 8% having RE (P = 1.00). Pelvic abscess formation (6% vs 2%, P = 0.63) and wound infection (8% vs 15%, P = 0.55) were also comparable. Extra-abdominal infection (13% vs 13%, P = 1.00) and non-infectious abdominal complications such as ileus and bleeding (27% and 31%, P = 0.83) were not significantly different. Overall morbidity was comparable in the two groups (50% vs 54%, P = 0.83). CONCLUSION: A simple RE before rectal surgery seems not to be associated with more postoperative infectious complications nor a higher overall morbidity than MBP.

Prospective comparison of MR enteroclysis with multidetector spiral-CT enteroclysis: interobserver agreement and sensitivity by means of "sign-by-sign" correlation.

Our objective was a prospective comparison of MR enteroclysis (MRE) with multidetector spiral-CT enteroclysis (MSCTE). Fifty patients with various suspected small bowel diseases were investigated by MSCTE and MRE. The MSCTE was performed using slices of 2.5 mm, immediately followed by MRE, obtaining T1- and T2-weighted sequences, including gadolinium-enhanced acquisition with fat saturation. Three radiologists independently evaluated MSCTE and MRE searching for 12 pathological signs. Interobserver agreement was calculated. Sensitivities and specificities resulted from comparison with pathological results ( n=29) and patient's clinical evolution ( n=21). Most pathological signs, such as bowel wall thickening (BWT), bowel wall enhancement (BWE) and lymphadenopathy (ADP), showed better interobserver agreement on MSCTE than on MRE (BWT: 0.65 vs 0.48; BWE: 0.51 vs 0.37; ADP: 0.52 vs 0.15). Sensitivity of MSCTE was higher than that of MRE in detecting BWT (88.9 vs 60%), BWE (78.6 vs 55.5%) and ADP (63.8 vs 14.3%). Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed significantly better sensitivity of MSCTE than that of MRE for each observer ( p=0.028, p=0.046, p=0.028, respectively). Taking the given study design into account, MSCTE provides better sensitivity in detecting lesions of the small bowel than MRE, with higher interobserver agreement.

Antigène carcino-embryonnaire circulant, fortement élevé et persistant, sans cancer décelable

A markedly elevated circulating CEA level was observed in January 1978 in a 40-year-old male patient who complained of functional digestive disorders consisting of 2-3 bowel movements at the end of each night. During follow-up of more than 3 years the CEA level was always found to be higher than 300 ng/ml as determined on 12 different blood samples using 3 different assays: the Hansen assay, our own inhibition radioimmunoassay performed on perchloric acid extract of serum, and a newly developed solid phase non-competitive enzyme immunoassay involving monoclonal anti-CEA antibody. The clinical evolution showed no aggravation of the persistent but mild bowel troubles, i.e. no real diarrhea or blood in the stool. The patient enjoys excellent general health and shows no weight loss. Barium enema, colonoscopy and extensive investigation by computerized axial tomography showed no evidence of primary or metastatic tumor. Apart from CEA, the blood chemistry was within normal limits. Six members of the patient's family have normal CEA levels. A possible explanation for this unique case of marked and persistent elevation of circulating CEA without evidence of cancer is discussed.