Ana Blanco Belver1, Mirko Aach2, Wolff Schmiegel1,3, Thomas A Schildhauer2, Renate Meindl2, Thorsten Brechmann4. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil gGmbH, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bürkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany. 2. Department of General and Trauma Surgery, Spinal Cord Injury Unit, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil gGmbH, Bochum, Germany. 3. Department of Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum GmbH, Bochum, Germany. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil gGmbH, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bürkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany. thorsten.brechmann@rub.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer is a major cause of death in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Preventive strategies, such as colonoscopy, deal with higher burdens that may lead to lower quality. AIMS: The primary objective was to evaluate the adenoma detection rate. Secondary objectives were to investigate other quality indicators regarding bowel preparation, sedation, and endoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive SCI patients who had undergone colonoscopy from 2003 to 2014 were assigned to a control group matched for age, gender, and year of procedure and reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Bowel preparation lasted longer (3.6 ± 1.5 vs. 1.2 ± 0.6 days, p = 0.001), achieved unsatisfactory cleansing results more often (23.7 vs. 3.6%) and caused more adverse events in 236 SCI compared to 414 control patients. Colonoscopy needed a longer time (36.9 vs. 25.0 min) and remained incomplete more often (24.6 vs. 4.6%), resulting in more re-colonoscopies (14.8 vs. 4.3%). Endoscopy- and sedation-related adverse events were equal. However, neither overall nor size-dependent polyp (30.9 vs. 34.8%), adenoma (21.2 vs. 21.0%), advanced adenoma (6.8 vs. 7.2%), or cancer (1.7 vs. 2.0%) detection rates differed. CONCLUSION: Despite intensified protocols, bowel preparation shows inferior results in SCI patients; colonoscopy needs more effort to succeed but achieves a comparable quality.
BACKGROUND:Cancer is a major cause of death in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Preventive strategies, such as colonoscopy, deal with higher burdens that may lead to lower quality. AIMS: The primary objective was to evaluate the adenoma detection rate. Secondary objectives were to investigate other quality indicators regarding bowel preparation, sedation, and endoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive SCI patients who had undergone colonoscopy from 2003 to 2014 were assigned to a control group matched for age, gender, and year of procedure and reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS:Bowel preparation lasted longer (3.6 ± 1.5 vs. 1.2 ± 0.6 days, p = 0.001), achieved unsatisfactory cleansing results more often (23.7 vs. 3.6%) and caused more adverse events in 236 SCI compared to 414 control patients. Colonoscopy needed a longer time (36.9 vs. 25.0 min) and remained incomplete more often (24.6 vs. 4.6%), resulting in more re-colonoscopies (14.8 vs. 4.3%). Endoscopy- and sedation-related adverse events were equal. However, neither overall nor size-dependent polyp (30.9 vs. 34.8%), adenoma (21.2 vs. 21.0%), advanced adenoma (6.8 vs. 7.2%), or cancer (1.7 vs. 2.0%) detection rates differed. CONCLUSION: Despite intensified protocols, bowel preparation shows inferior results in SCI patients; colonoscopy needs more effort to succeed but achieves a comparable quality.
Authors: David R Lichtenstein; Sanjay Jagannath; Todd H Baron; Michelle A Anderson; Subhas Banerjee; Jason A Dominitz; Robert D Fanelli; S Ian Gan; M Edwyn Harrison; Steven O Ikenberry; Bo Shen; Leslie Stewart; Khalid Khan; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Vanessa K Noonan; Matthew Fingas; Angela Farry; David Baxter; Anoushka Singh; Michael G Fehlings; Marcel F Dvorak Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Reinier G S Meester; Chyke A Doubeni; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Christopher D Jensen; Miriam P van der Meulen; Theodore R Levin; Virginia P Quinn; Joanne E Schottinger; Ann G Zauber; Douglas A Corley; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Victoria S Benson; Julietta Patnick; Anna K Davies; Marion R Nadel; Robert A Smith; Wendy S Atkin Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: M D Stratton; L W McKirgan; T P Wade; A M Vernava; K S Virgo; F E Johnson; W E Longo Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Jeffrey K Lee; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Jolanda de Boer; Bruce H Fireman; Joanne E Schottinger; Virginia P Quinn; Nirupa R Ghai; Theodore R Levin; Charles P Quesenberry Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 91.245