Shanglei Liu1, Samuel B Ho, Mary Lee Krinsky. 1. Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, VA San Diego Healthcare System and University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA 92161, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Currently colonoscopy quality indicators emphasize our ability to improve polyp detection (e.g., preparation quality, withdrawal times of ≥6 min). The completeness of a polyp resection may also be an important determinant of quality and efficient colonoscopy. The primary aim of this study was to determine the incidence of an incomplete polyp resection despite a perceived complete polypectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective quality assurance project conducted at the San Diego Veterans Affair Medical Center and University of California San Diego Medical Center from July 2007 to April 2008. The patients recruited to this study were undergoing surveillance and screening colonoscopy. The resection quality was evaluated in 65 polyps of 47 patients. Twenty-two polyps were removed with standard biopsy forceps, jumbo forceps (18), hot snare (18), and cold snare (7). Biopsies were taken from the post-polypectomy site base and perimeter for histologic examination in order to confirm histologic absence of all polypoid appearing mucosa. RESULTS: The post-polypectomy sites of ten polyps (15%) were found to have residual polypoid tissue. Six were removed by standard biopsy forceps, jumbo forceps (2), hot snare (1), and cold snare (1). When compared to other polypectomy devices, standard biopsy forceps were more likely to result in an incomplete resection (27 vs. 9%; P = 0.076). CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopist may not be visually accurate in determining when a polyp is completely resected, and alternative devices and techniques for polyp resection should be considered.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Currently colonoscopy quality indicators emphasize our ability to improve polyp detection (e.g., preparation quality, withdrawal times of ≥6 min). The completeness of a polyp resection may also be an important determinant of quality and efficient colonoscopy. The primary aim of this study was to determine the incidence of an incomplete polyp resection despite a perceived complete polypectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective quality assurance project conducted at the San Diego Veterans Affair Medical Center and University of California San Diego Medical Center from July 2007 to April 2008. The patients recruited to this study were undergoing surveillance and screening colonoscopy. The resection quality was evaluated in 65 polyps of 47 patients. Twenty-two polyps were removed with standard biopsy forceps, jumbo forceps (18), hot snare (18), and cold snare (7). Biopsies were taken from the post-polypectomy site base and perimeter for histologic examination in order to confirm histologic absence of all polypoid appearing mucosa. RESULTS: The post-polypectomy sites of ten polyps (15%) were found to have residual polypoid tissue. Six were removed by standard biopsy forceps, jumbo forceps (2), hot snare (1), and cold snare (1). When compared to other polypectomy devices, standard biopsy forceps were more likely to result in an incomplete resection (27 vs. 9%; P = 0.076). CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopist may not be visually accurate in determining when a polyp is completely resected, and alternative devices and techniques for polyp resection should be considered.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Klaus Mönkemüller; Helmut Neumann; Peter Malfertheiner; Lucia C Fry Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Douglas J Robertson; E Robert Greenberg; Michael Beach; Robert S Sandler; Dennis Ahnen; Robert W Haile; Carol A Burke; Dale C Snover; Robert S Bresalier; Gail McKeown-Eyssen; Jack S Mandel; John H Bond; Rosalind U Van Stolk; Robert W Summers; Richard Rothstein; Timothy R Church; Bernard F Cole; Tim Byers; Leila Mott; John A Baron Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Edwin J Lai; Audrey H Calderwood; Gheorghe Doros; Oren K Fix; Brian C Jacobson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-01-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Said Din; Alex J Ball; Eleanor Taylor; Matthew Rutter; Stuart A Riley; Shawinder Johal Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 4.584