4.8 Article

Effect of Institution-Wide Policy of Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time ≥7 Minutes on Polyp Detection

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 135, 期 6, 页码 1892-1898

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.024

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Society for Gastrointestinal Encloscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Practice guidelines recommend that endoscopists spend at least 7 minutes examining the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy withdrawal to optimize polyp yield. The aim of this study was to determine if the implementation of an institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time 7 minutes was associated with an increase in colon polyp detection. Methods: All 42 endoscopists at our institute were asked to attain a colonoscopy withdrawal time of at least 7 minutes. Compliance with 7-minute withdrawal time was recorded for all nontherapeutic colonoscopies. Polyp detection ratio (number of polyps detected divided by number of colonoscopies performed) was computed. Regression models were used to assess the association between compliance with 7-minute withdrawal time and polyp detection. Results: During the study period, 23,910 colonoscopies were performed. The average age of patients was 56.8 years, and 54% were female. Colon cancer screening or surveillance was the indication for 42.5% of colonoscopies. At the beginning of the study, the polyp detection ratio was 0.48. Compliance with 7-minute withdrawal time for nontherapeutic procedures increased from 65% at the beginning of the initiative to almost 100%. However, no increase in polyp detection ratio was noted over the same period for all polyps (slope, 0.0006; P =.45) or for polyps 1-5 mm (slope, 0.001; P = .26), 6-9 mm (slope, 0.002; P = .43), or >= 10 mm (slope, 0.006; P = .13). No association was detected when only colonoscopies performed for screening or surveillance were analyzed. Conclusions: An institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time >= 7 minutes had no effect on colon polyp detection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据