Literature DB >> 14625731

A prospective analysis of 3525 esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed by surgeons.

W P Reed1, J W Kilkenny, C E Dias, S D Wexner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of surgeons performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and to use these results to assess existing credentialing guidelines for surgeons.
METHODS: A prospective outcomes study was designed to accept input from members of SAGES. End points were the time taken and rate of success in reaching the duodenum, the frequency of arriving at a diagnosis, and complications of EGD as related to operator experience.
RESULTS: Information from a total of 3,525 EGDs was prospectively entered into a database between December 2001 and December 2002. Common indications were abdominal pain/nausea/vomiting (34.8%), gastroesophageal reflux disease (24.9%) and dysphagia (17.4%). The findings were inflammation in 1,895 (53.8%), hiatus hernia in 1,010 (28.7%), nonbleeding ulcer in 462 (13.1%), bleeding ulcer in 59 (1.7%), stricture in 344 (9.8%), and polyp/tumor in 206 (5.8%). Biopsies were obtained in 2080 (59.0%). Concomittant procedures performed were dilation in 253 (7.2%), removal of a foreign body (FB) or removal/insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (PEG) in 190 (5.4%), and polypectomy in 59 (1.7%). The EGD was completed to the duodenum in 3282 patients (93.1%) with a mean procedure time of 9.2 min (range 1-60 min). Examination of the duodenum was not attempted in 231 patients for reasons such as previous gastric surgery ( n = 119), obstruction ( n = 58) or because the EGD was done for FB/PEG removal or PEG placement ( n = 36). Attempted EGD could not be completed in 12 patients (0.3%). The most common complication was hypoxia ( n = 57, 1.6%), which was treated with supplemental oxygen and observation. New bleeding occurred in eight patients and the procedure failed to control bleeding in three others. No complications occurred in 3447 patients (97.8%). Completion rates and major complications were not correlated to experience, but there was a significant association between experience and the time required for completion of the procedure ( p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that surgeons can perform EGD with a high degree of success and low morbidity. On the basis of this large prospective study, no minimum number of cases could be proposed for credentialing surgeons to safely perform either diagnostic or therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14625731     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-003-8913-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  61 in total

1.  Methods of granting hospital privileges to perform gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Glenn M Eisen; Todd H Baron; Jason A Dominitz; Douglas O Faigel; Jay L Goldstein; John F Johanson; J Shawn Mallery; Hareth M Raddawi; John J Vargo; J Patrick Waring; Robert D Fanelli; Jo Wheeler-Harbough
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Insertion, efficacy, and removal of a nonendoscopically removable percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube.

Authors:  O W Cass; K Rowland; B Bartram; J R Ross; Y Choe; J D Hall
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Endoscopic complications: the Texas experience.

Authors:  R E Davis; D Y Graham
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 4.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). A new procedure comes of age.

Authors:  P G Foutch; W C Haynes; S Bellapravalu; R A Sanowski
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 3.062

5.  Arterial oxygen desaturation during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  D S Dark; D R Campbell; L J Wesselius
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  Objective evaluation of competence: technical skills in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  O W Cass
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 10.093

7.  Esophagogastroduodenoscopy by family physicians phase II: a national multisite study of 2,500 procedures.

Authors:  W M Rodney; J R Weber; J A Swedberg; D M Gelb; W H Coleman; J E Hocutt; T Huston; C R Bradford; C Cronin
Journal:  Fam Pract Res J       Date:  1993-06

8.  Oxygen desaturation and changes in breathing pattern in patients undergoing colonoscopy and gastroscopy.

Authors:  J S Barkin; B Krieger; M Blinder; L Bosch-Blinder; R I Goldberg; R S Phillips
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1989 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 9.  Complications of diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  R Hart; M Classen
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 10.093

10.  Prospective audit of perforation rates following upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in two regions of England.

Authors:  M A Quine; G D Bell; R F McCloy; H R Matthews
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  8 in total

1.  Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy.

Authors:  Melina C Vassiliou; Pepa A Kaneva; Benjamin K Poulose; Brian J Dunkin; Jeffrey M Marks; Riadh Sadik; Gideon Sroka; Mehran Anvari; Klaus Thaler; Gina L Adrales; Jeffrey W Hazey; Jenifer R Lightdale; Vic Velanovich; Lee L Swanstrom; John D Mellinger; Gerald M Fried
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Why fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES)?

Authors:  Jeffrey W Hazey; Jeffrey M Marks; John D Mellinger; Thadeus L Trus; Bipan Chand; Conor P Delaney; Brian J Dunkin; Robert D Fanelli; Gerald M Fried; Jose M Martinez; Jonathan P Pearl; Benjamin K Poulose; Lelan F Sillin; Melina C Vassiliou; W Scott Melvin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The effect of the endoscopist on the wait-time for colorectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Bora Karip; Yalın İşcan; Birol Ağca; Mahir Fersahoğlu; Timuçin Aydın; Kafkas Çelik; Nuriye Esen Bulut; Kemal Memişoğlu
Journal:  Ulus Cerrahi Derg       Date:  2014-06-01

4.  Granting of privilege for gastrointestinal endoscopy : This privilege guideline was reviewed and approved by the Board of Governors of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), September 2007. It was prepared by the SAGES Guidelines Committee.

Authors:  Yumi Hori
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-03-26       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Surgeon-performed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Outcomes of 2392 procedures at two tertiary care centers.

Authors:  Mazen R Al-Mansour; Eleanor C Fung; Edward L Jones; Nichole E Zayan; Timothy D Wetzel; Sara E Martin Del Campo; Anahita D Jalilvand; Andrew J Suzo; Rebecca R Dettorre; James K Fullerton; Michael P Meara; John D Mellinger; Vimal K Narula; Jeffrey W Hazey
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Guidelines for privileging and credentialing physicians in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Jonathan Pearl; Erika Fellinger; Brian Dunkin; Eric Pauli; Thadeus Trus; Jeffrey Marks; Robert Fanelli; Michael Meara; Dimitrios Stefanidis; William Richardson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  NIS vs SAGES: a comparison of national and voluntary databases.

Authors:  J M Morton; J A Galanko; N J Soper; D E Low; J Hunter; L W Traverso
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-05-13       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings in adolescents at Lacor Hospital, Uganda.

Authors:  Tom Richard Okello
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 0.927

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.