PMC
PubMed
PDF
Cite
Share
Vol.15 No.3
May, 2021
Frequency : Quarterly
pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212 
Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE
| Yong Chan Lee |
Professor of Medicine Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco San Francisco, USA |
| Jong Pil Im | Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea |
| Robert S. Bresalier | University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA |
| Steven H. Itzkowitz | Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA |
All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.
The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.
Review ㅣ 2012-04-29
431
98
2404
Laura M. Stinton, and Eldon A. Shaffer
Abstract : Diseases of the gallbladder are common and costly. The best epidemiological screening method to accurately determine point prevalence of gallstone disease is ultrasonography. Many risk factors for cholesterol gallstone formation are not modifiable such as ethnic background, increasing age, female gender and family history or genetics. Conversely, the modifi able risks for cholesterol gallstones are obesity, rapid weight loss and a sedentary lifestyle. The rising epidemic of obesity and the metabolic syndrome predicts an escalation of cholesterol gallstone frequency. Risk factors for biliary sludge include pregnancy, drugs like ceftiaxone, octreotide and thiazide diuretics, and total parenteral nutrition or fasting. Diseases like cirrhosis, chronic hemolysis and ileal Crohn’s disease are risk factors for black pigment stones. Gallstone disease in childhood, once considered rare, has become increasingly recognized with similar risk factors as those in adults, particularly obesity. Gallbladder cancer is uncommon in developed countries. In the U.S., it accounts for only ~ 5,000 cases per year. Elsewhere, high incidence rates occur in North and South American Indians. Other than ethnicity and female gender, additional risk factors for gallbladder cancer include cholelithiasis, advancing age, chronic infl ammatory conditions affecting the gallbladder, congenital biliary abnormalities, and diagnostic confusion over gallbladder polyps.
Original Article ㅣ 2021-03-15
2
68
485
Yong Il Lee 
, Yehyun Park , Soo Jung Park , Tae Il Kim , Won Ho Kim , and Jae Hee Cheon
Abstract : Background/Aims: The tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors infliximab and adalimumab are standard treatments for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there has been no headto- head comparison of treatment efficacy and outcomes between the two agents. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and long-term outcomes of infliximab versus adalimumab treatment in biologic-naïve patients with UC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 113 biologic-naïve patients with UC who were treated between September 2012 and December 2017 (the infliximab group [n=83] and the adalimumab group [n=30]). We compared remission and response rates between these groups at 8 and 52 weeks. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to compare long-term outcomes, and logistic regression analysis and Cox-proportional hazard regression models to assess factors affecting outcomes. Results: The median follow-up duration was 25.8 months. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rate of clinical remission or clinical response at 8 or 52 weeks. Multivariate analyses also showed that long-term outcomes were not significantly different (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 2.56; p=0.208). An elevated C-reactive protein level (greater than 5 mg/L) was a significant predictive factor for poor outcomes (adjusted HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37 to 3.70; p=0.001). During the follow-up period, the rates of adverse event were not significantly different between the two groups (p=0.441). Conclusions: In our study, infliximab and adalimumab had similar treatment efficacy and longterm outcomes in biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe UC.
Original Article ㅣ 2021-05-15
2
94
256
Seong Ran Jeon , Jin-Oh Kim , Jeong-Sik Byeon , Dong-Hoon Yang , Bong Min Ko , Hyeon Jeong Goong , Hyun Joo Jang , Soo Jung Park , Eun Ran Kim , Sung Noh Hong , Jong Pil Im , Seong-Eun Kim , Ja Seol Koo , Chang Soo Eun , and Dong Kyung Chang , Small Intestine Research Group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID)
Abstract : Background/Aims: Although balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) enables endoscopic visualization of small bowel (SB) involvement in Crohn’s disease (CD), there is no data on the changes in outcomes over time. We therefore investigated the changes in BAE use on CD patients over different time periods in terms of its role and clinical outcomes. Methods: We used a multicenter enteroscopy database to identify CD patients with SB involvement who underwent BAE (131 procedures, 116 patients). We compared BAE-related factors and outcomes between the first period (70 procedures, 60 patients) and the second period (61 procedures, 56 patients). The specific cutoff point for dividing the two periods was 2007, when BAE guidelines were introduced. Results: Initial diagnosis of SB involvement in CD was the most common indication for BAE during each period (50.0% vs 31.1%, p=0.034). The largest change was in the number of BAE uses for stricture evaluation and/or treatment, which increased significantly in the latter period (2.9% vs 21.3%, p=0.002). The diagnostic yield in patients with suspected CD was 90.7% in the first period and 95.0% in the second (p=0.695). More endoscopic interventions were performed in the second period than in the first (5.1% vs 17.6%, p=0.041). Enteroscopic success rates were high throughout (100% in the first period vs 80.0% in the second period, p>0.999). In the first and second periods, therapeutic plans were adjusted in 62.7% and 61.4% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The overall clinical indications, outcomes, and effectiveness of BAE were constant over time in CD patients with SB involvement, with the exception that the frequency of enteroscopic intervention increased remarkably.
Original Article ㅣ 2021-05-15
0
65
222
Michihiro Yoshida , Itaru Naitoh , Kazuki Hayashi , Naruomi Jinno , Yasuki Hori , Makoto Natsume , Akihisa Kato , Kenta Kachi , Go Asano , Naoki Atsuta , Hidenori Sahashi , and Hiromi Kataoka
Abstract : Background/Aims: Although endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) has been reported as an alternative procedure for acute cholecystitis, it requires advanced endoscopic techniques. In terms of the certainty of achieving drainage, it remains a challenging procedure. The aim of the current study was to elucidate the practical efficacy of cholangioscopic assistance and to develop a new classification that could be used to evaluate the technical difficulty of ETGBD and provide a theoretical strategy to apply cholangioscopy appropriately for difficult ETGBD. Methods: A total of 101 patients undergoing ETGBD were retrospectively studied. The characteristics and technical outcomes of ETGBD with conventional ETGBD (C-ETGBD) and SpyGlass DS-assisted ETGBD (SG-ETGBD) were evaluated. The characteristics and technique-dependent factors of unsuccessful C-ETGBD/SG-ETGBD were evaluated using the classification based on the steps of the procedure. The predictive factors of successful C-ETGBD/SG-ETGBD were examined. Results: C-ETGBD was successful in 73 patients (72.3%). SG-ETGBD was successful in 11 of 13 patients (84.6%) who had C-ETGBD failure. Optional SG-ETGBD significantly increased the final success rate (94.1%) compared to C-ETGBD alone (p=0.003). ETGBD procedures could be classified into four steps. SG-assistance worked as an excellent troubleshooter in step 1 (failure to identify the cystic duct orifice) and step 2 (failure of guidewire advancement across the downturned angle of cystic duct takeoff). Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography could provide predictive information based on the classification. Conclusions: Optional SG-ETGBD achieved a significantly higher success rate than C-ETGBD alone. Step classification is helpful for determining the technical difficulty of ETGBD and developing a theoretical strategy to apply cholangioscopy in a coordinated manner.
pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212
Hye-Kyung Jung , Seung Joo Kang , Yong Chan Lee , Hyo-Joon Yang , Seon-Young Park , Cheol Min Shin , Sung Eun Kim , Hyun Chul Lim , Jie-Hyun Kim , Su Youn Nam , Woon Geon Shin , Jae Myung Park , Il Ju Choi , Jae Gyu Kim , and Miyoung Choi , Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research
Gut and Liver 2021; 15(2): 168-195
Young-Hwan Ahn , Heirim Lee , Do Young Kim , Hye Won Lee , Su Jong Yu , Young Youn Cho , Jeong Won Jang , Byoung Kuk Jang , Chang Wook Kim , Hee Yeon Kim , Hana Park , Hyo Jung Cho , Bumhee Park , Soon Sun Kim , and Jae Youn Cheong
Gut and Liver 2021; 15(3): 410-419
Joon Sung Kim , Byung-Wook Kim , Do Hoon Kim , Chan Hyuk Park , Hyuk Lee , Moon Kyung Joo , Da Hyun Jung , Jun- Won Chung , Hyuk Soon Choi , Gwang Ho Baik , Jeong Hoon Lee , Kyo Young Song , and Saebeom Hur , The Korean Society of Gastroenterology, Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research, Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, The Korean Gastric Cancer Association, Korean Society of Interventional Radiology
Gut and Liver 2020; 14(5): 560-570
Laura M. Stinton, and Eldon A. Shaffer
Gut Liver 2012; 6(2): 172-187
Geoffrey C. Farrell, Derrick van Rooyen, Lay Gan, and Shivrakumar Chitturi
Gut Liver 2012; 6(2): 149-171
Ran Xu Zhu, Wai-Kay Seto, Ching-Lung Lai, and Man-Fung Yuen
Gut and Liver 2016; 10(3): 332-339
Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE
| Yong Chan Lee |
Professor of Medicine Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco San Francisco, USA |
| Jong Pil Im | Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea |
| Robert S. Bresalier | University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA |
| Steven H. Itzkowitz | Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA |
All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.
The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.
