eISSN: 2299-0054
ISSN: 1895-4588
Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques
Current issue Archive Videoforum Manuscripts accepted About the journal Supplements Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank


1/2018
vol. 13
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Cecal intubation rates in different eras of endoscopic technological development

Maciej Matyja, Artur Pasternak, Mirosław Szura, Michał Pędziwiatr, Piotr Major, Kazimierz Rembiasz

Videosurgery Miniinv 2018; 13 (1): 67–73
Online publish date: 2018/03/19
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
Colonoscopy plays a critical role in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and has been widely regarded as the gold standard. Cecal intubation rate (CIR) is one of the well-defined quality indicators used to assess colonoscopy.

Aim
To assess the impact of new technologies on the quality of colonoscopy by assessing completion rates.

Material and methods
This was a dual-center study at the 2nd Department of Surgery at Jagiellonian University Medical College and at the Specialist Center “Medicina” in Krakow, Poland. The CIR and cecal intubation time (CIT) in three different eras of technological advancement were determined. The study enrolled 27 463 patients who underwent colonoscopy as part of a national CRC screening program. The patients were divided into three groups: group I – 3408 patients examined between 2000 and 2003 (optical endoscopes); group II – 10 405 patients examined between 2004 and 2008 (standard electronic endoscopes); and group III – 13 650 patients examined between 2009 and 2014 (modern endoscopes).

Results
There were statistically significant differences in the CIR between successive eras. The CIR in group I (2000–2003) was 69.75%, in group II (2004–2008) was 92.32%, and in group III (2009–2014) was 95.17%. The mean CIT was significantly reduced in group III.

Conclusions
Our study shows that the technological innovation of novel endoscopy devices has a great influence on the effectiveness of the CRC screening program. The new era of endoscopic technological development has the potential to reduce examination-related patient discomfort, obviate the need for sedation and increase diagnostic yields.

keywords:

technology, quality, endoscopy, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time

references:
Deen KI, Silva H, Deen R, Chandrasinghe PC. Colorectal cancer in the young, many questions, few answers. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2016; 8: 481-8.
Račkauskas R, Mikalauskas S, Petrulionis M, et al. Laparoscopically assisted colonoscopic polypectomy – viable option for curative surgery in elderly patients. Videosurgery Miniinv 2017; 12: 120-4.
Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-308.
Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 65-72.
Marshall JB, Barthel JS. The frequency of total colonoscopy and terminal ileal intubation in the 1990s. Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39: 518-20.
Eloubeidi MA, Wallace MB, Desmond R, Farraye FA. Female gender and other factors predictive of a limited screening flexible sigmoidoscopy examination for colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1634-9.
Harris JK, Vader JP, Wietlisbach V, et al. Variations in colonoscopy practice in Europe: a multicentre descriptive study (EPAGE). Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 126-34.
Rathgaber SW, Wick TM. Colonoscopy completion and complication rates in a community gastroenterology practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 556-62.
European Commission. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010.
Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-308.
Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1570-95.
Rabeneck L, Rumble RB, Axler J, et al. Cancer Care Ontario Colonoscopy Standards: standards and evidentiary base. Can J Gastroenterol 2007; 21: 5D-24D.
Obstein KL, Valdastri P. Advanced endoscopic technologies for colorectal cancer screening. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 431-9.
Issa IA, Noureddine M. Colorectal cancer screening: an updated review of the available options. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 5086-96.
Harris JK, Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, et al. Factors associated with the technical performance of colonoscopy: an EPAGE study. Dig Liver Dis 2007; 39: 678-89.
Cuesta R, Sola-Vera J, Uceda F, et al. Does “responsive insertion technology” improve practice of colonoscopy? Results of a randomized study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 355-61.
Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63 (4 Suppl): S16-28.
Leung FW. Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 2008; 53: 1462-7.
Prietode Frías C, Muńoz-Navas M, Carretero C, et al. Estudio comparativo entre un colonoscopio con tecnología RIT (“responsive insertion technology”) y un colonoscopio de rigidez variable convencional [Comparative study of a responsive insertion technology (RIT) colonoscope versus a variable-stiffness colonoscope]. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2013; 105: 208-13.
Rex DK, Khalfan HK. Sedation and the technical performance of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2005; 15: 661-72.
Rex DK. Colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2000; 10: 135-60, viii.
Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Dahler S, et al. Improvement in caecal intubation rate and pain reduction by using 3-dimensional magnetic imaging for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized trial of patients referred for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 885-9.
Saito Y, Kimura H. Responsive insertion technology. Dig Endosc 2011; 23 (Suppl. 1): 164-7.
Pasternak A, Szura M, Solecki R, et al. Impact of responsive insertion technology (RIT) on reducing discomfort during colonoscopy: randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 2247-54.
Leung JW, Thai A, Yen A, et al. Magnetic endoscope imaging (ScopeGuide) elucidates the mechanism of action of the pain-alleviating impact of water exchange colonoscopy – attenuation of loop formation. J Interv Gastroenterol 2012; 2: 142-6.
Classen M, Tytgat GNJ, Lightdale CJ. Gastroenterological Endoscop. Stuttgart, Germany: George Thieme Verlag 2002.
  
Quick links
© 2018 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe