Literature DB >> 30788127

Effect of time of day and daily endoscopic workload on outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps.

Yonatan J Hillman1, Bari S Hillman2, Divyesh V Sejpal1, Calvin Lee1, Larry S Miller1, Petros C Benias1, Arvind J Trindade1.   

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps is challenging. Objective: To determine if the time of day or daily endoscopic workload play a role in outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large non-pedunculated colon polyps greater than 20 mm.
Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps. The time of day and endoscopic workload were compared across the following outcomes: the rate of complete resection of the polyp, the rate of referral for surgery, and the rate of residual neoplasia on follow-up.
Results: One hundred and three endoscopic mucosal resection procedures were performed. There were no differences in the rates of complete resection (80.8% vs. 70.0%; P = 0.25), the need for surgery (27.4% vs. 33.3%; P = 0.55), and rate of residual neoplasia (24.5% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.07) when comparing the time of day. Colon polyps greater than 40 mm were less likely to be completely resected versus polyps sized 20-39 mm (56.8% vs. 91.9%; P < 0.001). In cases with no residual neoplasia on follow-up, the mean duration for the index procedure was 45.6 minutes versus 60.7 minutes when there was residual neoplasia (P < 0.01).
Conclusion: The time of day and endoscopic workload does not affect outcomes for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps, but the size of large non-pedunculated colon polyps and resection times do.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endoscopic mucosal resection; colon cancer; colonoscopy

Year:  2018        PMID: 30788127      PMCID: PMC6374846          DOI: 10.1177/2050640618804724

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J        ISSN: 2050-6406            Impact factor:   4.623


  20 in total

Review 1.  Advanced endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions.

Authors:  Andres Sanchez-Yague; Tonya Kaltenbach; Gottumukkala Raju; Roy Soetikno
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin North Am       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 3.806

2.  Endoscopic mucosal resection: learning curve for large nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  Abhishek Bhurwal; Michael J Bartel; Michael G Heckman; Nancy N Diehl; Massimo Raimondo; Michael B Wallace; Timothy A Woodward
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 3.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Risk factors for adverse events related to polypectomy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Matthew D Rutter; Claire Nickerson; Colin J Rees; Julietta Patnick; Roger G Blanks
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 10.093

5.  Effect of the time of day on the success and adverse events of ERCP.

Authors:  Paresh P Mehta; Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Mansour A Parsi; Gregory Zuccaro; John A Dumot; Rocio Lopez; John J Vargo
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia.

Authors:  Alan Moss; Michael J Bourke; Stephen J Williams; Luke F Hourigan; Gregor Brown; William Tam; Rajvinder Singh; Simon Zanati; Robert Y Chen; Karen Byth
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 22.682

7.  Adenoma detection rate is not influenced by full-day blocks, time, or modified queue position.

Authors:  Einar Lurix; Adrian V Hernandez; Matthew Thoma; Fernando Castro
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 8.  Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology.

Authors:  Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; John Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; David Johnson; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; Perry J Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Robert A Smith; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-02-08       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  The size, morphology, site, and access score predicts critical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon.

Authors:  Mayenaaz Sidhu; David J Tate; Lobke Desomer; Gregor Brown; Luke F Hourigan; Eric Y T Lee; Alan Moss; Spiro Raftopoulos; Rajvinder Singh; Stephen J Williams; Simon Zanati; Nicholas Burgess; Michael J Bourke
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 10.093

10.  Work and resources needed for endoscopic resection of large sessile colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Andrew J Overhiser; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2007-07-10       Impact factor: 11.382

View more
  1 in total

1.  Effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yi Liu; Min Shi; Jun Ren; Xiao-Li Zhou; Song Liu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 1.817

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.