Literature DB >> 18639495

Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy.

Robert L Barclay1, Joseph J Vicari, Roger L Greenlaw.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening colonoscopy can prevent cancer by removal of adenomatous polyps. Recent evidence suggests that insufficient time for inspection during overly rapid colonoscope withdrawal may compromise adenoma detection. We conducted a study of the effect of a minimum prespecified time for instrument withdrawal and careful inspection on adenoma detection rates during screening colonoscopy.
METHODS: Baseline data consisted of neoplasia detection rates during 2053 screening colonoscopies performed without a specified withdrawal protocol. During a subsequent 13-month period we performed 2325 screening colonoscopies using dedicated inspection techniques and a minimum 8-minute withdrawal time. With colonoscopists comprising the study population, we compared overall and individual rates of neoplasia detection in postintervention procedures with those in baseline examinations.
RESULTS: As compared with baseline subjects, postintervention subjects had higher rates of any neoplasia (34.7% vs 23.5%, P < .0001) and of advanced neoplastic lesions per patient screened (0.080 +/- 0.358 vs 0.055 +/- 0.241, P < .01). Twenty-five percent of advanced neoplastic lesions detected in postintervention examinations were 9 mm or less in diameter, versus 10% in baseline examinations (P < .001). Endoscopists with mean withdrawal times of 8 minutes or longer had higher rates of detection of any neoplasia (37.8% vs 23.3%, P < .0001) and of advanced neoplasia (6.6% vs 4.5%, P = .13) compared with those with mean withdrawal times of less than 8 minutes.
CONCLUSIONS: After implementing a protocol of careful inspection during a minimum of 8 minutes to withdraw the colonoscope, we observed significantly greater rates of overall and advanced neoplasia detection during screening colonoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18639495     DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.04.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  79 in total

1.  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

2.  Diagnostic yield of small bowel capsule endoscopy depends on the small bowel transit time.

Authors:  Jessie Westerhof; Jan J Koornstra; Reinier A Hoedemaker; Wim J Sluiter; Jan H Kleibeuker; Rinse K Weersma
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-04-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  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

4.  Advances in endoscopy: current developments in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2010-04

5.  Quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians with standby specialist support.

Authors:  Sudha Xirasagar; Thomas G Hurley; Lekhena Sros; James R Hebert
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.

Authors:  David Armstrong; Alan Barkun; Ron Bridges; Rose Carter; Chris de Gara; Catherine Dube; Robert Enns; Roger Hollingworth; Donald Macintosh; Mark Borgaonkar; Sylviane Forget; Grigorios Leontiadis; Jonathan Meddings; Peter Cotton; Ernst J Kuipers
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-01       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.  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

9.  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

10.  Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Vivian E Ekkelenkamp; Kevin Dowler; Roland M Valori; Paul Dunckley
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.