Literature DB >> 31233327

Validation of the size morphology site access score in endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps in a district general hospital.

A C Currie1, H Merriman1, S Nadia Shah Gilani1, P Mackenzie1, M R McFall1, M K Baig1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Polyp assessment is multimodal and is vital prior to endoscopic mucosal resection. The size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score has been validated in specialist endoscopic institutions. this study investigated the ability of this score to predict incomplete endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps in a district general hospital.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of large (≥ 20 mm) colorectal polyps at Worthing Hospital. Clinical, endoscopic and histological data were taken from prospective databases. The primary outcome of the study was to investigate the correlation of the SMSA score with incomplete endoscopic resection.
RESULTS: Between February 2015 and August 2018, 114 patients underwent colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. Of these, 67 (59%) were male. The median (interquartile range) age of the study population was 72 years (65-78 years). Some 17 lesions (15%) were pedunculated, 76 (67%) were sessile and 21 were (18%) flat; 84 polyps (77%) were located in the left colon/rectum, with the remainder in the right colon; 51 lesions (45%) were 20-30 mm, 27 (24%) were 30-40 mm and 36 (31%) were greater than 40 mm in diameter. When reclassified into the SMSA score, 9 of the polyps (8%) were level 2, 64 (56%) were level 3 and 41 (36%) were level 4. Incomplete resection was clinically diagnosed in 9/114 (8%). The SMSA score was positively correlated with incomplete endoscopic resection, but not with additional procedure usage, complications or advanced histology.
CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with large polyps can be managed outside of specialist units. This study has validated that the SMSA score was associated with incomplete endoscopic mucosal resection for large polyps in a district general hospital setting.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colorectal neoplasms; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Endoscopy; Polyps; Hospitals, general; Prospective studies

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31233327      PMCID: PMC6818069          DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2019.0068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  19 in total

1.  Selection for laparoscopic resection confers a survival benefit in colorectal cancer surgery in England.

Authors:  Alan Askari; Subramanian Nachiappan; Andrew Currie; Alex Bottle; Thanos Athanasiou; Omar Faiz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop.

Authors:  Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  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

4.  Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.

Authors:  Monika Ferlitsch; Alan Moss; Cesare Hassan; Pradeep Bhandari; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Gregorios Paspatis; Rodrigo Jover; Cord Langner; Maxime Bronzwaer; Kumanan Nalankilli; Paul Fockens; Rawi Hazzan; Ian M Gralnek; Michael Gschwantler; Elisabeth Waldmann; Philip Jeschek; Daniela Penz; Denis Heresbach; Leon Moons; Arnaud Lemmers; Konstantina Paraskeva; Juergen Pohl; Thierry Ponchon; Jaroslaw Regula; Alessandro Repici; Matthew D Rutter; Nicholas G Burgess; Michael J Bourke
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 10.093

5.  Flat and depressed lesions of the colorectum.

Authors:  Shin-ei Kudo; Hiroshi Kashida
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 11.382

6.  Do patients with gastrointestinal cancer want to decide where they have tests and surgery? A questionnaire study of provider choice.

Authors:  Ben E Byrne; Omar D Faiz; Charles Vincent
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 7.035

7.  British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Matthew D Rutter; Amit Chattree; Jamie A Barbour; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Pradeep Bhandari; Brian P Saunders; Andrew M Veitch; John Anderson; Bjorn J Rembacken; Maurice B Loughrey; Rupert Pullan; William V Garrett; Gethin Lewis; Sunil Dolwani
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  Risk stratification system for evaluation of complex polyps can predict outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection.

Authors:  Gaius Longcroft-Wheaton; Moses Duku; Robert Mead; Peter Basford; Pradeep Bhandari
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.585

Review 9.  Endoscopic polypectomy: techniques, complications and follow-up.

Authors:  A Repici; R Tricerri
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.781

10.  Endoscopic resection of large sessile colonic polyps by specialist and non-specialist endoscopists.

Authors:  J C Brooker; B P Saunders; S G Shah; C B Williams
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 6.939

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.