S Gupta1, D Miskovic2, P Bhandari3, S Dolwani4, B McKaig5, R Pullan6, B Rembacken7, S Riley8, M D Rutter9, N Suzuki1, Z Tsiamoulos1, R Valori10, M E Vance1, O D Faiz2, B P Saunders1, S Thomas-Gibson1. 1. Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark's Hospital and Imperial College London, Harrow, UK. 2. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham, Portsmouth, UK. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK. 6. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, UK. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK. 8. Department of Gastroenterology, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK. 9. Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK. 10. Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopists are now expected to perform polypectomy routinely. Colonic polypectomy varies in difficulty, depending on polyp morphology, size, location and access. The measurement of the degree of difficulty of polypectomy, based on polyp characteristics, has not previously been described. OBJECTIVE: To define the level of difficulty of polypectomy. METHODS: Consensus by nine endoscopists regarding parameters that determine the complexity of a polyp was achieved through the Delphi method. The endoscopists then assigned a polyp complexity level to each possible combination of parameters. A scoring system to measure the difficulty level of a polyp was developed and validated by two different expert endoscopists. RESULTS: Through two Delphi rounds, four factors for determining the complexity of a polypectomy were identified: size (S), morphology (M), site (S) and access (A). A scoring system was established, based on size (1-9 points), morphology (1-3 points), site (1-2 points) and access (1-3 points). Four polyp levels (with increasing level of complexity) were identified based on the range of scores obtained: level I (4-5), level II (6-9), level III (10-12) and level IV (>12). There was a high degree of interrater reliability for the polyp scores (interclass correlation coefficient of 0.93) and levels (κ=0.888). CONCLUSIONS: The scoring system is feasible and reliable. Defining polyp complexity levels may be useful for planning training, competency assessment and certification in colonoscopic polypectomy. This may allow for more efficient service delivery and referral pathways.
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopists are now expected to perform polypectomy routinely. Colonic polypectomy varies in difficulty, depending on polyp morphology, size, location and access. The measurement of the degree of difficulty of polypectomy, based on polyp characteristics, has not previously been described. OBJECTIVE: To define the level of difficulty of polypectomy. METHODS: Consensus by nine endoscopists regarding parameters that determine the complexity of a polyp was achieved through the Delphi method. The endoscopists then assigned a polyp complexity level to each possible combination of parameters. A scoring system to measure the difficulty level of a polyp was developed and validated by two different expert endoscopists. RESULTS: Through two Delphi rounds, four factors for determining the complexity of a polypectomy were identified: size (S), morphology (M), site (S) and access (A). A scoring system was established, based on size (1-9 points), morphology (1-3 points), site (1-2 points) and access (1-3 points). Four polyp levels (with increasing level of complexity) were identified based on the range of scores obtained: level I (4-5), level II (6-9), level III (10-12) and level IV (>12). There was a high degree of interrater reliability for the polyp scores (interclass correlation coefficient of 0.93) and levels (κ=0.888). CONCLUSIONS: The scoring system is feasible and reliable. Defining polyp complexity levels may be useful for planning training, competency assessment and certification in colonoscopic polypectomy. This may allow for more efficient service delivery and referral pathways.
Authors: W Heldwein; M Dollhopf; T Rösch; A Meining; G Schmidtsdorff; J Hasford; P Hermanek; R Burlefinger; B Birkner; W Schmitt Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Sachin Gupta; John Anderson; Pradeep Bhandari; Brian McKaig; Pullan Rupert; Bjorn Rembacken; Stuart Riley; Matt Rutter; Roland Valori; Margaret Vance; Cees P M van der Vleuten; Brian P Saunders; Siwan Thomas-Gibson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: D A Gilbert; A J DiMarino; D M Jensen; R Katon; M B Kimmey; L A Laine; B V MacFadyen; P A Michaletz-Onody; G Zuckerman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1992 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Michael P Swan; Michael J Bourke; Sina Alexander; Alan Moss; Stephen J Williams Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-09-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: A C Currie; H Merriman; S Nadia Shah Gilani; P Mackenzie; M R McFall; M K Baig Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: N C A Vermeer; M P M de Neree Tot Babberich; P Fockens; I D Nagtegaal; C J H van de Velde; E Dekker; P J Tanis; K C M J Peeters Journal: BJS Open Date: 2019-07-30
Authors: Oliver Bendall; Joel James; Katarzyna M Pawlak; Sauid Ishaq; J Andy Tau; Noriko Suzuki; Steven Bollipo; Keith Siau Journal: Clin Exp Gastroenterol Date: 2021-12-24
Authors: Maria Azevedo Silva; Carina Leal; André Ruge; Alexandra Fernandes; Liliana Eliseu; Helena Vasconcelos Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-09-06