Arash Azin1, M Carolina Jimenez1, Michelle C Cleghorn1, Timothy D Jackson1, Allan Okrainec1, Peter G Rossos1, Fayez A Quereshy1. 1. From the Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Azin); the Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Jimenez, Cleghorn, Jackson, Okrainec, Quereshy); the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Jackson, Okrainec, Quereshy); Division of Gastroenterology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Rossos); and the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Rossos).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A myriad of localization options are available to endoscopists for colorectal cancer (CRC); however, little is known about the use of such techniques and their relation to repeat endoscopy before CRC surgery. We examined the localization practices of gastroenterologists and compared their perceptions toward repeat endoscopy to those of general surgeons. METHODS: We distributed a survey to practising gastroenterologists through a provincial repository. Univariate analysis was performed using the χ² test. RESULTS: Gastroenterologists (n = 69) reported using anatomical landmarks (91.3%), tattooing (82.6%) and image capture (73.9%) for tumour localization. The majority said they would tattoo lesions that could not be removed by colonoscopy (91.3%), high-risk polyps (95.7%) and large lesions (84.1%). They were equally likely to tattoo lesions planned for laparoscopic (91.3%) or open (88.4%) resection. Rectal lesions were less likely to be tattooed (20.3%) than left-sided (89.9%) or right-sided (85.5%) lesions. Only 1.4% agreed that repeat endoscopy is the standard of care, whereas 38.9% (n = 68) of general surgeons agreed (p < 0.001). General surgeons were more likely to agree that an incomplete initial colonoscopy was an indication for repeat endoscopy (p = 0.040). Further, 56% of general surgeons indicated that the findings of repeat endoscopy often lead to changes in the operative plan. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies exist between gastroenterologists and general surgeons with regards to perceptions toward repeat endoscopy and its indications. This is especially significant given that repeat endoscopy often leads to change in surgical management. Further research is needed to formulate practice recommendations that guide the use of repeat endoscopy, tattoo localization and quality reporting.
BACKGROUND: A myriad of localization options are available to endoscopists for colorectal cancer (CRC); however, little is known about the use of such techniques and their relation to repeat endoscopy before CRC surgery. We examined the localization practices of gastroenterologists and compared their perceptions toward repeat endoscopy to those of general surgeons. METHODS: We distributed a survey to practising gastroenterologists through a provincial repository. Univariate analysis was performed using the χ² test. RESULTS: Gastroenterologists (n = 69) reported using anatomical landmarks (91.3%), tattooing (82.6%) and image capture (73.9%) for tumour localization. The majority said they would tattoo lesions that could not be removed by colonoscopy (91.3%), high-risk polyps (95.7%) and large lesions (84.1%). They were equally likely to tattoo lesions planned for laparoscopic (91.3%) or open (88.4%) resection. Rectal lesions were less likely to be tattooed (20.3%) than left-sided (89.9%) or right-sided (85.5%) lesions. Only 1.4% agreed that repeat endoscopy is the standard of care, whereas 38.9% (n = 68) of general surgeons agreed (p < 0.001). General surgeons were more likely to agree that an incomplete initial colonoscopy was an indication for repeat endoscopy (p = 0.040). Further, 56% of general surgeons indicated that the findings of repeat endoscopy often lead to changes in the operative plan. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies exist between gastroenterologists and general surgeons with regards to perceptions toward repeat endoscopy and its indications. This is especially significant given that repeat endoscopy often leads to change in surgical management. Further research is needed to formulate practice recommendations that guide the use of repeat endoscopy, tattoo localization and quality reporting.
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Laura M Fernandez; Rowaa N M Ibrahim; Ido Mizrahi; Giovanna DaSilva; Steven D Wexner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Joshua P Spaete; Jiayin Zheng; Shein-Chung Chow; Rebecca A Burbridge; Katherine S Garman Journal: South Med J Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 0.954
Authors: Garrett G R J Johnson; Olivia Hershorn; Harminder Singh; Jason Park; Ramzi M Helewa Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 3.453