Literature DB >> 25931898

Our results of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: evaluation of 700 patients.

Mustafa Özsoy1, Bahadır Celep1, Ogun Ersen1, Taner Özkececi1, Ahmet Bal1, Sezgin Yılmaz1, Yüksel Arıkan1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although radiological imaging modalities like barium enema and computed tomography provide some clues, endoscopic methods still maintain superiority in assessment and differential diagnosis of large intestinal symptoms and complaints that require biopsy. We aimed to present the results of colonoscopic procedures performed in our general surgery clinic in detail.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven hundred patients who presented to Afyon Kocatepe University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of General Surgery Endoscopy Unit between January 2011 and July 2012 with an indication for colonoscopy were retrospectively evaluated.
RESULTS: Out of the 700 patients enrolled in the study 356 (50.8%) were male while 344 patients (49.2%) were female. The mean age of the patients was found to be 49 years. Within the group of 700 patients who underwent colonoscopic examinations, the terminal ileum and cecum have been reached on the first attempt in 432 patients (61.7%) and colonoscopic success has been achieved. Results of colonoscopies performed on 700 patients in our clinic revealed malignancy in 42 (6%) patients, and all of these patients were treated surgically in our clinic. Mortality was not observed in this series. Procedure-related bleeding and perforation developed in 6 patients. One patient developed respiratory arrest due to sedation and patient was responsive to resuscitation. The complication rate in our series was 1%.
CONCLUSION: In the study where we revised our own clinical experience, we found that our success rate was lower than the literature, and our complication rate was higher. The main reasons are accepted as our colonoscopy unit's being young and the low patient volume.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colonoscopy; diagnosis; surgeon

Year:  2014        PMID: 25931898      PMCID: PMC4379822          DOI: 10.5152/UCD.2014.2284

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ulus Cerrahi Derg        ISSN: 1300-0705


  11 in total

1.  The ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open access system.

Authors:  G Minoli; G Meucci; A Bortoli; A Garripoli; R Gullotta; P Leo; A Pera; A Prada; F Rocca; A Zambelli
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  [Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in patients aged eighty years or older].

Authors:  A Kirchgatterer; D Hubner; G Aschl; M Hinterreiter; B Stadler; P Knoflach
Journal:  Z Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Prospective evaluation of complications in outpatient GI endoscopy: a survey among German gastroenterologists.

Authors:  A Sieg; U Hachmoeller-Eisenbach; T Eisenbach
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 4.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Vilma Cokkinides; Otis W Brawley
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Pathology of the rectal wall in solitary rectal ulcer syndrome and complete rectal prolapse.

Authors:  Y S Kang; M A Kamm; A F Engel; I C Talbot
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?

Authors:  C J A Bowles; R Leicester; C Romaya; E Swarbrick; C B Williams; O Epstein
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Complication rates of colonoscopy in an Australian teaching hospital environment.

Authors:  C H Viiala; M Zimmerman; D J E Cullen; N E Hoffman
Journal:  Intern Med J       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.048

8.  Quality assessment of colonoscopic cecal intubation: an analysis of 6 years of continuous practice at a university hospital.

Authors:  Florence Aslinia; Lance Uradomo; Allison Steele; Bruce D Greenwald; Jean-Pierre Raufman
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-02-22       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence.

Authors:  Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 10.  Colorectal cancer screening: scientific review.

Authors:  Judith M E Walsh; Jonathan P Terdiman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-03-12       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  5 in total

1.  The effect of suture selection in complex anal fistulas on the success of cutting seton placement and patient comfort.

Authors:  Murat Akici; Ogun Ersen
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2020 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.088

2.  Effect of nurse-performed enhanced patient education on colonoscopy bowel preparation quality.

Authors:  Gamze Arslanca; Mahmure Aygün
Journal:  Rev Lat Am Enfermagem       Date:  2022

3.  Factors affecting successful colonoscopy procedures: Single-center experience.

Authors:  Ramazan Kozan; Tonguç Utku Yılmaz; Uygar Baştuğral; Umut Kerimoğlu; Yücel Yavuz
Journal:  Turk J Surg       Date:  2018-01-04

4.  Effects of body mass index on cecal intubation time in women.

Authors:  Banu Karapolat; Üzer Küçüktülü
Journal:  Turk J Surg       Date:  2018-07-01

5.  The Effect of Virtual Reality on Pain and Anxiety During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Selda Karaveli Çakır; Sami Evirgen
Journal:  Turk J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 1.852

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.