Browsing by Subject "Colonoscopies"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Faster colonoscope withdrawal time without impaired detection using EndoRings
    (Thieme, 2018-08) Thygesen, John C.; Ponugoti, Prasanna; Tippins, William W.; Garcia, Jonathan R.; Sullivan, Andrew W.; Broadley, Heather M.; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and study aims:  Mucosal exposure devices on the colonoscope tip have improved detection. We evaluated detection and procedure times in colonoscopies performed with EndoRings. Patients and methods:  We had 14 endoscopists in a university practice trial EndoRings. We compared detection and procedure times to age- and indication-matched procedures by the same endoscopists. Results:  There were 137 procedures with EndoRings. The adenoma detection rate was 44 % with EndoRings vs. 39 % without ( P  = 0.39). Mean adenomas per colonoscopy (standard deviation) was 1.2 (2.3) with EndoRings vs. 0.9 (1.6) without ( P  = 0.055). Mean insertion time with EndoRings was 6.2 (3.2) minutes vs. 6.6 (6.7) minutes without ( P  = 0.81). Mean withdrawal time with EndoRings in all patients with or without polypectomy was 12.2 (5.3) minutes and 16.1 (10.3) minutes without ( P  = 0.0005). Conclusion:  EndoRings may allow faster withdrawal during colonoscopy without any reduction in detection. Prospective trials with mucosal exposure devices targeting procedure times as primary endpoints are warranted.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Individualized feedback on colonoscopy skills improves group colonoscopy quality in providers with lower adenoma detection rates
    (Thieme, 2022-03-14) Keswani, Rajesh N.; Wood, Mariah; Benson, Mark; Gawron, Andrew J.; Kahi, Charles; Kaltenbach, Tonya; Yadlapati, Rena; Gregory, Dyanna; Duloy, Anna; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and study aims:  Colonoscopy inspection quality (CIQ) assesses skills (fold examination, cleaning, and luminal distension) during inspection for polyps and correlates with adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated detection rate (SDR). We aimed to determine whether providing individualized CIQ feedback with instructional videos improves quality metrics performance. Methods:  We prospectively studied 16 colonoscopists who already received semiannual benchmarked reports of quality metrics (ADR, SDR, and withdrawal time [WT]). We randomly selected seven colonoscopies/colonoscopist for evaluation. Six gastroenterologists graded CIQ using an established scale. We created instructional videos demonstrating optimal and poor inspection techniques. Colonoscopists received the instructional videos and benchmarked CIQ performance. We compared ADR, SDR, and WT in the 12 months preceding (“baseline”) and following CIQ feedback. Colonoscopists were stratified by baseline ADR into lower (≤ 34 %) and higher-performing (> 34 %) groups. Results:  Baseline ADR was 38.5 % (range 26.8 %–53.8 %) and SDR was 11.2 % (2.8 %–24.3 %). The proportion of colonoscopies performed by lower-performing colonoscopists was unchanged from baseline to post-CIQ feedback. All colonoscopists reviewed their CIQ report cards. Post-feedback, ADR (40.1 % vs 38.5 %, P  = 0.1) and SDR (12.2 % vs. 11.2 %, P  = 0.1) did not significantly improve; WT significantly increased (11.4 vs 12.4 min, P  < 0.01). Among the eight lower-performing colonoscopists, group ADR (31.1 % vs 34.3 %, P  = 0.02) and SDR (7.2 % vs 9.1 %, P  = 0.02) significantly increased post-feedback. In higher-performing colonoscopists, ADR and SDR did not change. Conclusions: CIQ feedback modestly improves ADR and SDR among colonoscopists with lower baseline ADR but has no effect on higher-performing colonoscopists. Individualized feedback on colonoscopy skills could be used to improve polyp detection by lower-performing colonoscopists.