Literature DB >> 18279862

An adequate level of training for technical competence in screening and diagnostic colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter evaluation of the learning curve.

Suck-Ho Lee1, Il-Kwun Chung, Sun-Joo Kim, Jin-Oh Kim, Bong-Min Ko, Young Hwangbo, Won Ho Kim, Dong Hun Park, Sang Kil Lee, Cheol Hee Park, Il-Hyun Baek, Dong Il Park, Seun-Ja Park, Jeong-Seon Ji, Byung-Ik Jang, Yoon-Tae Jeen, Jeong Eun Shin, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Chang-Soo Eun, Dong Soo Han.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various training programs in colonoscopy recommend that trainees should perform at least 100 to 200 procedures to be considered technically competent at diagnostic colonoscopy.
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine the adequate level of training for technical competence in screening and diagnostic colonoscopy.
DESIGN: A prospective multicenter trial.
SETTING: Fifteen tertiary care academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Over 8 months we prospectively evaluated the procedures of 24 first-year GI fellows in 15 tertiary care academic medical centers. A total of 4351 colonoscopies were assessed prospectively with variable clinical factors. INTERVENTION: Cecal intubation was documented by photographing the identified cecal landmarks, including the appendiceal orifice and the ileocecal valve. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Acquisition of competence (success rate) was evaluated for colonoscopic training on the basis of 2 objective criteria: (1) adjusted completion rate (>90%) and (2) cecal intubation time (<20 minutes).
RESULTS: The overall success rate was 83.5% (3635/4351). The mean cecal intubation time was 9.23 +/- 4.63 minutes. The success rate significantly improved and reached the requisite standard of competence after 150 procedures (71.5%, 82.6%, 91.3%, 94.4%, 98.4%, and 98.7%, respectively, for every 50 consecutive blocks). The polyp detection rate did not improve significantly during the 8 months and was not correlated with the learning curve. In addition, mean time to cecal intubation decreased significantly, from 11.16 to 8.39 minutes, after 150 procedures. Logistic regression analysis found that prolonged cecal intubation was caused by the following factors: elderly patients, female sex, low body mass index, poor bowel preparation, poor American Society of Anesthesiologists status, abdominal pain as an indication, instructor's supervision, and low case volume. LIMITATIONS: We did not record final pathologic reports of detected polyps and withdrawal time.
CONCLUSIONS: Competence in technically efficient screening and diagnostic colonoscopy generally requires experience with more than 150 cases. Also, factors associated with prolonged cecal intubation for typical trainees did not differ from those for experienced colonoscopists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18279862     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.10.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  50 in total

1.  Magnetic air capsule robotic system: proof of concept of a novel approach for painless colonoscopy.

Authors:  P Valdastri; G Ciuti; A Verbeni; A Menciassi; P Dario; A Arezzo; M Morino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Trainees' adenoma detection rate is higher if ≥ 10 minutes is spent on withdrawal during colonoscopy.

Authors:  Mark A Gromski; Christopher A Miller; Suck-Ho Lee; Eun Seo Park; Tae Hoon Lee; Sang-Heum Park; Il-Kwun Chung; Sun-Joo Kim; Young Hwangbo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Factors associated with adherence to the recommended postpolypectomy surveillance interval.

Authors:  Eun Ran Kim; Dong Hyun Sinn; Jin Yong Kim; Dong Kyung Chang; Poong-Lyul Rhee; Jae J Kim; Jong Chul Rhee; Young-Ho Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Assessing colonoscopy training outcomes using quality indicators.

Authors:  Leigh D Eckert; Matthew W Short; Jason E Domagalski; Khalid A Jaboori; Patricia A Short
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2009-09

5.  Warm water and oil assistance in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Emilio Brocchi; Raffaele Pezzilli; Paola Tomassetti; Davide Campana; Roberto Corinaldesi
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Endoscopy services and training: a national survey of general surgeons.

Authors:  Daniel Skubleny; Noah Switzer; Shahzeer Karmali; Christopher de Gara
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 7.  Achieving competence in colonoscopy: Milestones and the need for a new endoscopic curriculum in gastroenterology training.

Authors:  Sara B Stanford; Stephanie Lee; Candace Masaquel; Robert H Lee
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-12-10

8.  The cap-assisted technique enhances colonoscopy training: prospective randomized study of six trainees.

Authors:  Sang Man Park; Soon Hak Lee; Keun Young Shin; Jun Heo; Sang Hun Sung; Soon Hong Park; So Young Choi; Dong Wook Lee; Hyun Gu Park; Hyun Seok Lee; Seong Woo Jeon; Sung Kook Kim; Min Kyu Jung
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Mechanical analysis of insertion problems and pain during colonoscopy: why highly skill-dependent colonoscopy routines are necessary in the first place... and how they may be avoided.

Authors:  Arjo J Loeve; Paul Fockens; Paul Breedveld
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 10.  Advanced endoscopic technologies for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Keith L Obstein; Pietro Valdastri
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.