Mohammad F Madhoun1, William M Tierney. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality benchmark for colonoscopy, influenced by several factors including bowel preparation, withdrawal time, and withdrawal technique. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of video recording of all colonoscopies on the ADR. DESIGN: Comparison of two cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy before and after implementation of video recording. SETTING: Academic outpatient endoscopy facility. PATIENTS: This study involved asymptomatic, average-risk adults undergoing screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Video recording of all colonoscopy procedures. Polyp findings and withdrawal times were recorded for 208 consecutive screening colonoscopies. A policy of video recording all colonoscopies was implemented and announced to the staff. Data on another 213 screening colonoscopies were subsequently collected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, advanced polyp detection rate, hyperplastic polyp detection rate. RESULTS: At least one adenoma was found in 38.5% of patients after video recording versus 33.7% before video recording (P = .31). There was a significant increase in the hyperplastic polyp detection rate (44.1% vs 34.6%; P = .046). Most endoscopists had a numerical increase in their ADRs, but only one was significant (57.7% vs 22.6%; P < .01). There were trends toward higher detection of adenomas of <5 mm (59.1% vs 52%; P = .23) and right-sided adenomas (40.2% vs 30.4%; P = .11) in the video recorded group. LIMITATIONS: No randomization, confounding of intervention effects, and sample size limitations. CONCLUSION: Video recording of colonoscopies is associated with a nonsignificant increase in the ADR and a significant increase in the hyperplastic polyp detection rate. There may be a benefit of video recording for endoscopists with low ADRs.
BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality benchmark for colonoscopy, influenced by several factors including bowel preparation, withdrawal time, and withdrawal technique. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of video recording of all colonoscopies on the ADR. DESIGN: Comparison of two cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy before and after implementation of video recording. SETTING: Academic outpatient endoscopy facility. PATIENTS: This study involved asymptomatic, average-risk adults undergoing screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Video recording of all colonoscopy procedures. Polyp findings and withdrawal times were recorded for 208 consecutive screening colonoscopies. A policy of video recording all colonoscopies was implemented and announced to the staff. Data on another 213 screening colonoscopies were subsequently collected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, advanced polyp detection rate, hyperplastic polyp detection rate. RESULTS: At least one adenoma was found in 38.5% of patients after video recording versus 33.7% before video recording (P = .31). There was a significant increase in the hyperplastic polyp detection rate (44.1% vs 34.6%; P = .046). Most endoscopists had a numerical increase in their ADRs, but only one was significant (57.7% vs 22.6%; P < .01). There were trends toward higher detection of adenomas of <5 mm (59.1% vs 52%; P = .23) and right-sided adenomas (40.2% vs 30.4%; P = .11) in the video recorded group. LIMITATIONS: No randomization, confounding of intervention effects, and sample size limitations. CONCLUSION: Video recording of colonoscopies is associated with a nonsignificant increase in the ADR and a significant increase in the hyperplastic polyp detection rate. There may be a benefit of video recording for endoscopists with low ADRs.
Authors: Benjamin Lebwohl; Robert M Genta; Robert C Kapel; Daniel Sheehan; Nina S Lerner; Peter H Green; Alfred I Neugut; Andrew Rundle Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 2.566
Authors: Konstantinos Triantafyllou; Athanasios D Sioulas; Theodora Kalli; Nikolaos Misailidis; Dimitrios Polymeros; Ioannis S Papanikolaou; George Karamanolis; Spiros D Ladas Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; John Anderson; Roland Valori; Ewa Kraszewska; Maciej Rupinski; Jacek Pachlewski; Ewa Wronska; Michael Bretthauer; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Ernst J Kuipers; Jaroslaw Regula Journal: Gut Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Nadav Willner; Maya Peled-Raz; Dan Shteinberg; Michal Shteinberg; Dean Keren; Tova Rainis Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-11-23