Literature DB >> 29756103

Factors affecting successful colonoscopy procedures: Single-center experience.

Ramazan Kozan1, Tonguç Utku Yılmaz2, Uygar Baştuğral3, Umut Kerimoğlu1, Yücel Yavuz4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy is a gold standard procedure for several colon pathologies. Successful colonoscopy means demonstration of the ileocecal valve and determination of colon polyps. Here we aimed to evaluate our colonoscopy success and results.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective descriptive study was performed in İstanbul Eren hospital endoscopy unit between 2012 and 2015. Colonoscopy results and patient demographics were obtained from the hospital database. All colonoscopy procedures were performed under general anesthesia and after full bowel preparation.
RESULTS: In all, 870 patients were included to the study. We reached to the cecum in 850 (97.8%) patients. We were unable to reach the cecum in patients who were old and obese and those with previous lower abdominal operations. Angulation, inability to move forward, and tortuous colon were the reasons for inability to reach the cecum. Total 203 polyp samplings were performed in 139 patients. We performed 1, 2, and 3 polypectomies in 97, 28, and 10 patients, respectively. There were 29 (3.3%) colorectal cancers in our series. There was no mortality or morbidity in our study.
CONCLUSION: General anesthesia and full bowel preparation may be the reason for increased success of colonoscopy. Increased experience and patient-endoscopist cooperation increased the rate of cecum access and polyp resection and decreased the complication rate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colonoscopy; cecum; diagnosis; polyp

Year:  2018        PMID: 29756103      PMCID: PMC5937655          DOI: 10.5152/turkjsurg.2017.3733

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Surg        ISSN: 2564-6850


  24 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Colonoscopy quality indicators: from individual performance to institutional policy.

Authors:  Marek Bugajski; Michal F Kaminski
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 10.093

3.  Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy.

Authors:  J C Anderson; C R Messina; W Cohn; E Gottfried; S Ingber; G Bernstein; E Coman; J Polito
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Performance measures of surgeon-performed colonoscopy in a Veterans Affairs medical center.

Authors:  H S Tran Cao; B C Cosman; B Devaraj; S Ramamoorthy; T Savides; M L Krinsky; S Horgan; M A Talamini; M K Savu
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-03-06       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  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

6.  Variations between endoscopists in rates of detection of colorectal neoplasia and their impact on a regional screening program based on colonoscopy after fecal occult blood testing.

Authors:  Jean-François Bretagne; Stéphanie Hamonic; Christine Piette; Sylvain Manfredi; Emmanuelle Leray; Gérard Durand; Françoise Riou
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 9.427

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.  Predictive value of morphologic characteristics in rectosigmoid adenomatous polyps for the probability of synchronous polyps or cancer in the proximal colon.

Authors:  Levent Erdem; Nihat Akbayir; Sadik Yildirim; Hakan M Köksal; Necati Yenice; Orhan S Gültekin; Damlanur Sakiz; Onder Peker
Journal:  Turk J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 1.852

9.  A prospective study of the prevalence of colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients with an age-related risk.

Authors:  D A Johnson; M S Gurney; R J Volpe; D M Jones; M M VanNess; S J Chobanian; J C Avalos; J L Buck; G Kooyman; E L Cattau
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Factors associated with adenoma detection rate and diagnosis of polyps and colorectal cancer during colonoscopy in France: results of a prospective, nationwide survey.

Authors:  Maximilien Barret; Christian Boustiere; Jean-Marc Canard; Jean-Pierre Arpurt; David Bernardini; Philippe Bulois; Stanislas Chaussade; Denis Heresbach; Isabelle Joly; Jean Lapuelle; René Laugier; Gilles Lesur; Patrice Pienkowski; Thierry Ponchon; Bertrand Pujol; Bruno Richard-Molard; Michel Robaszkiewicz; Rémi Systchenko; Fatima Abbas; Anne-Marie Schott-Pethelaz; Christophe Cellier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

1.  Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology.

Authors:  Jeffrey Voigt; Michael Mosier; Ian M Gralnek
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2021-04-29

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
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.