Literature DB >> 16948808

Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time.

D T Simmons1, G C Harewood, T H Baron, B T Petersen, K K Wang, F Boyd-Enders, B J Ott.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2002, a U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer recommended that the withdrawal phase for colonoscopy should average at least 6-10 min. This was based on 10 consecutive colonoscopies by two endoscopists with different adenoma miss rates. AIMS: To characterize the relationship between endoscopist withdrawal time and polyp detection at colonoscopy, and to determine the withdrawal time that corresponds to the median polyp detection rate.
DESIGN: Procedural data from out-patient colonoscopies performed at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester during 2003 were reviewed. Endoscopists were characterized by their mean withdrawal time for a negative procedure and individual polyp detection rate.
RESULTS: A total of 10 955 colonoscopies performed by 43 endoscopists were analysed. Median withdrawal time was 6.3 min (range: 4.2-11.9); polyp detection rate was 44.0% (all polyps), 29.8% (< or = 5 mm), 5.9% (6-9 mm), 6.7% (10-19 mm), 2.1% (> or = 20 mm). Longer withdrawal time was associated with higher polyp detection rate (r = 0.76; P < 0.0001); this relationship weakened for larger polyps (r = 0.19 for polyps 6-9 mm, r = 0.28 for polyps 10-19 mm, r = 0.02 for polyps > or = 20 mm). Overall median polyp detection rate corresponded to a withdrawal time of 6.7 min.
CONCLUSION: Our findings support a colonoscopy withdrawal time of at least 7 min, which correlates with higher colon polyp detection rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16948808     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03080.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0269-2813            Impact factor:   8.171


  55 in total

1.  Prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating cap-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy.

Authors:  Hoi-Poh Tee; Crispin Corte; Hamdan Al-Ghamdi; Emilia Prakoso; John Darke; Raman Chettiar; Wassim Rahman; Scott Davison; Sean-P Griffin; Warwick-S Selby; Arthur-J Kaffes
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Endoscopy and polyps-diagnostic and therapeutic advances in management.

Authors:  Scott R Steele; Eric K Johnson; Bradley Champagne; Brad Davis; Sang Lee; David Rivadeneira; Howard Ross; Dana A Hayden; Justin A Maykel
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-07-21       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Patients with functional constipation do not have increased prevalence of colorectal cancer precursors.

Authors:  Annie On On Chan; Wai Mo Hui; Gigi Leung; Teresa Tong; Ivan F N Hung; Pierre Chan; Axel Hsu; David But; Benjamin C Y Wong; Shiu Kum Lam; Kwok Fai Lam
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Canadian credentialing guidelines for colonoscopy.

Authors:  J Romagnuolo; R Enns; T Ponich; J Springer; D Armstrong; A N Barkun
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.522

5.  User's perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services in Canada: a study protocol.

Authors:  Gilles Jobin; Marie Pierre Gagnon; Bernard Candas; Catherine Dubé; Anis Ben Abdeljelil; Sonya Grenier
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 7.327

6.  The quality of screening colonoscopies in an office-based endoscopy clinic.

Authors:  Douglas Bair; Joe Pham; M Bianca Seaton; Naveen Arya; Michelle Pryce; Trevor L Seaton
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.522

7.  Quality indicators for colorectal cancer screening for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen
Journal:  Tech Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-04

8.  Comparison of Pentax HiLine and Olympus Lucera systems at screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Alexey Chernolesskiy; David Swain; James C Lee; Gareth D Corbett; Ewen Ab Cameron
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-02-16

9.  Quality colonoscopy: a matter of time, technique or technology?

Authors:  Robert H Lee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Should Assessment of Quality Indicator of Colonoscopy Be Varied Depending on the Colonoscopic Technique Level?

Authors:  Bum Su Choung; Seong Hun Kim; Kyung Bo Yoo; Seung Young Seo; In Hee Kim; Seung Ok Lee; Soo Teik Lee; Sang Wook Kim
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.