PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Denis King

Publications and source records attributed to Denis King.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Impaired proximal colonic motor response to rectal mechanical and chemical stimulation in obstructed defecation.

PURPOSE: Both motor and sensory dysfunction have been implicated in the pathogenesis of obstructed defecation. We have found that despite preservation of a defecatory urge, patients with obstructed defecation have lost the normal predefecatory augmentation in frequency and amplitude of colonic propagating pressure waves. This observation might be explainable by either altered rectal sensory thresholds or by dysfunction in the colonic motor apparatus. By measuring rectal sensory thresholds and proximal colonic motor responses to rectal mechanical and chemical stimuli, we tested the hypotheses that central perception of rectal stimuli is enhanced and that the proximal colonic motor response to rectal stimulation is attenuated. METHODS: In seven patients with obstructed defecation and ten healthy volunteers we measured proximal colonic motor responses and sensory thresholds in response to both rectal balloon distention and rectal instillation of chenodeoxycholic acid. RESULTS: In controls, but not in patients, rectal mechanical distention significantly reduced and chemical stimulation significantly increased the frequency of proximal colonic propagating sequences (P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in rectal sensory thresholds between patients and controls. Prior instillation of chenodeoxycholic acid significantly reduced (P < 0.03) maximum tolerated balloon volume and defecatory urge volume to comparable degree in both patients and controls. CONCLUSIONS: In obstructed defecation, 1) the normal rectocolonic pathways mediating stimulation-induced proximal colonic propagating pressure waves are nonfunctioning, and. 2) central perception of these rectal stimuli is normal.

Adult↗

Picoprep-3 is a superior colonoscopy preparation to Fleet: a randomized, controlled trial comparing the two bowel preparations.

PURPOSE: Bowel preparations for colonoscopy have to balance the demand for adequate cleansing action of the bowel and patient acceptability. There has been no study comparing Picoprep-3 (sodium picosulfate), a relatively new product, to Fleet (sodium phosphate), a well-studied and widely used preparation. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and patient tolerance of these two bowel preparations for colonoscopy. METHODS: A randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial was conducted. A total of 400 consecutive patients presenting for elective colonoscopy at St George Private Hospital during a 20-week period were randomly assigned to receive Picoprep-3 or Fleet. Patients were asked to record the effects of the preparation, noting tolerability, taste, and side effects. Two hundred patients were assigned to the Picoprep-3 group and 200 to the Fleet group. Surgeons were blinded to the preparation used and rated the quality of the bowel preparation on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the optimal score). RESULTS: Picoprep-3 was found to be better tolerated (P < 0.0001) and better tasting (P < 0.0001) than Fleet. Patients in the Picoprep-3 group reported significantly less nausea (P < 0.001), vomiting (P < 0.004), dizziness (P < 0.01), abdominal pains (P = 0.0005), and thirst (P < 0.0001) associated with the preparation. There was no significant difference in visualization of the colon between the two groups as judged by the two colonoscopists (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy preparation with Picoprep-3 has similar efficacy but superior taste and tolerability compared with Fleet. Picoprep-3 caused less adverse side effects in the study population.

Cathartics↗

Sutureless intestinal plication.

BACKGROUND: Adhesions form between damaged mesothelial surfaces and can cause recurrent small bowel obstruction. Repeat laparotomies may be required in some cases, which can be associated with significant morbidities. METHODS: A technique is described for plication of the small bowel in an orderly manner with the use of two silicone indwelling urinary catheters. CONCLUSIONS: This plication technique, a modification of the Noble and Childs-Phillips operations, is effective, safe, quick and cost-effective.

Catheters, Indwelling↗