Literature DB >> 20363418

Effect of simply recording colonoscopy withdrawal time on polyp and adenoma detection rates.

Andrew Taber1, Joseph Romagnuolo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: According to national recommendations, colonoscopy withdrawal time (WT) on negative screening examinations should average more than 6 minutes because this time is associated with a higher rate of polyp detection. Attempts have been made to increase the WT; however, simply knowing that a quality measure, such as the WT, is being monitored, by itself, may improve the quality of an examination.
OBJECTIVE: To measure changes in the polyp detection rate associated with recording the WT.
DESIGN: Retrospective.
SETTING: Single tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy within 5 months immediately before (group A) and after (group B) initiation of WT recording. Colonoscopies were excluded if procedure times were incomplete, missing, or nonsensical. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Polyp detection, compared by using the chi(2) test and logistic regression multivariate analyses; pathology manually reviewed from a sample of 200 consecutive polyp cases (100 per group).
RESULTS: The average WT in group B was 14.5 minutes (11.0 minutes in negative screening examinations). In group A, polyps were detected in 530 (37.7%) of 1405 colonoscopies compared with 571 (41.2%) of 1387 colonoscopies in group B (difference 3.5%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 7.1%), a nonsignificant 9.3% relative increase. Longer procedure time, age, sex, and indication were significant predictors; monitoring the WT was not. Nonsignificantly, more polyp examinations in group B found all nonadenomas compared with group A (36% vs 27%; P = .17), and polyps were nonsignificantly smaller (P = .30). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective database data, pathology performed only on a subsample.
CONCLUSION: WT recording was associated with a nonsignificant increase in polyp detection, but this was likely attributable to a slight increase in the detection of (smaller) nonadenomatous polyps. Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20363418     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.12.008

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Improved bowel preparation increases polyp detection and unmasks significant polyp miss rate.

Authors:  Ioannis S Papanikolaou; Athanasios D Sioulas; Nektarios Magdalinos; Iosif Beintaris; Lazaros-Dimitrios Lazaridis; Dimitrios Polymeros; Chrysoula Malli; George D Dimitriadis; Konstantinos Triantafyllou
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 1.337

Review 3.  Quality in Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Katherine T Brunner; Audrey H Calderwood
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2015-10

4.  Effects of the no interruption zone on distraction levels, withdrawal times, and adenoma detection rates of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Nancy S Behazin; Michelle Thompson; Mena Milad; Jeffrey Hart; Juhee Song; Mark Jeffries; Dawn M Sears
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy according to lesion location and endoscopist training level.

Authors:  Dong Jun Kim; Hyung Wook Kim; Su Bum Park; Dae Hwan Kang; Cheol Woong Choi; Joung Boom Hong; Byoung Hoon Ji; Chang Seok Lee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Adenoma detection rates decline with increasing procedural hours in an endoscopist's workload.

Authors:  Majid A Almadi; Maida Sewitch; Alan N Barkun; Myriam Martel; Lawrence Joseph
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-05-21

7.  Editorial: On the Quality of Quality Metrics: Rethinking What Defines a Good Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Jason A Dominitz; Brennan Spiegel
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 8.  Advanced colorectal polyp detection techniques.

Authors:  Bashar J Qumseya; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2012-10

9.  Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Lynn Butterly; Christina M Robinson; Joseph C Anderson; Julia E Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Tracy L Onega; Christopher I Amos; Michael L Beach
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Retrospective analysis showing the water method increased adenoma detection rate - a hypothesis generating observation.

Authors:  Joseph W Leung; Lynne D Do; Rodelei M Siao-Salera; Catherine Ngo; Dhavan A Parikh; Surinder K Mann; Felix W Leung
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.