Brendan Moran1,2, Rishabh Sehgal3, Neil O'Morain3, Eoin Slattery4, Chris Collins4,5. 1. Academic Department of Surgery, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland. brendan0moran@gmail.com. 2. , Limerick, Ireland. brendan0moran@gmail.com. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland. 4. Academic Department of Surgery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The European and American colonoscopy guidelines recommend mandatory photodocumentation of caecal intubation to allow retrospective analysis and improve outcomes. We aim to demonstrate whether photodocumentation of caecal intubation improves colonoscopy outcomes. METHODS: We extracted images and procedural data from 317 consecutive colonoscopies. Images were anonymised and reviewed by four expert reviewers who scored their certainty that caecal intubation was achieved. Statistical analysis correlated adequately and inadequately photodocumented cases with polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 59.4 years and 52% were male. Eighty-one percent were performed by consultant endoscopists and 19% by specialist registrar. Sixty-five percent of these procedures were performed by gastroenterologists and 35% by surgical endoscopists. Fifty-three percent were deemed to have adequately demonstrated photographic evidence of caecal intubation. Statistical analysis comparing adequately and inadequately photodocumented cases: the PDR of procedures with confirmed caecal intubation was greater than procedures without photographic evidence (40% vs 34%). Similarly, the ADR of photographically confirmed cases was greater than that of inadequately photodocumented cases (25% vs 18%). The number of images taken per procedure positively correlated with photographic documentation of caecal intubation. CONCLUSION: While failing to reach statistical significance, there was a nominal difference in ADR and PDR demonstrated between the two groups, and with predominantly positive confidence intervals, this might suggest that a larger sample size could result in significance in favour of photodocumentation of caecal intubation. Future studies would be warranted. However, endoscopists that take more images were more likely to have proven caecal intubation.
OBJECTIVES: The European and American colonoscopy guidelines recommend mandatory photodocumentation of caecal intubation to allow retrospective analysis and improve outcomes. We aim to demonstrate whether photodocumentation of caecal intubation improves colonoscopy outcomes. METHODS: We extracted images and procedural data from 317 consecutive colonoscopies. Images were anonymised and reviewed by four expert reviewers who scored their certainty that caecal intubation was achieved. Statistical analysis correlated adequately and inadequately photodocumented cases with polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 59.4 years and 52% were male. Eighty-one percent were performed by consultant endoscopists and 19% by specialist registrar. Sixty-five percent of these procedures were performed by gastroenterologists and 35% by surgical endoscopists. Fifty-three percent were deemed to have adequately demonstrated photographic evidence of caecal intubation. Statistical analysis comparing adequately and inadequately photodocumented cases: the PDR of procedures with confirmed caecal intubation was greater than procedures without photographic evidence (40% vs 34%). Similarly, the ADR of photographically confirmed cases was greater than that of inadequately photodocumented cases (25% vs 18%). The number of images taken per procedure positively correlated with photographic documentation of caecal intubation. CONCLUSION: While failing to reach statistical significance, there was a nominal difference in ADR and PDR demonstrated between the two groups, and with predominantly positive confidence intervals, this might suggest that a larger sample size could result in significance in favour of photodocumentation of caecal intubation. Future studies would be warranted. However, endoscopists that take more images were more likely to have proven caecal intubation.
Authors: Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; Jason A Dominitz; John G Lieb; David A Lieberman; Walter G Park; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Thomas J W Lee; Matthew D Rutter; Roger G Blanks; Sue M Moss; Andrew F Goddard; Andrew Chilton; Claire Nickerson; Richard J Q McNally; Julietta Patnick; Colin J Rees Journal: Gut Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Douglas K Rex; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; Theodore R Levin; David Lieberman; Douglas J Robertson Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; Jaroslaw Regula; Ewa Kraszewska; Marcin Polkowski; Urszula Wojciechowska; Joanna Didkowska; Maria Zwierko; Maciej Rupinski; Marek P Nowacki; Eugeniusz Butruk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Meredith A Goldwasser; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; David R Urbach; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas J W Lee; Colin J Rees; Roger G Blanks; Sue M Moss; Claire Nickerson; Karen C Wright; Peter W James; Richard J Q McNally; Julietta Patnick; Matthew D Rutter Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Brian Bressler; Lawrence F Paszat; Christopher Vinden; Cindy Li; Jingsong He; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Susan J Moug; Spyridon Fountas; Mark S Johnstone; Adam S Bryce; Andrew Renwick; Lindsey J Chisholm; Kathryn McCarthy; Amy Hung; Robert H Diament; John R McGregor; Myo Khine; James D Saldanha; Khurram Khan; Graham Mackay; E Fiona Leitch; Ruth F McKee; John H Anderson; Ben Griffiths; Alan Horgan; Sonia Lockwood; Carly Bisset; Richard Molloy; Mark Vella Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584