eISSN: 1897-4317
ISSN: 1895-5770
Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny
Bieżący numer Archiwum Artykuły zaakceptowane O czasopiśmie Bazy indeksacyjne Prenumerata Kontakt Zasady publikacji prac
NOWOŚĆ
Portal dla gastroenterologów!
www.egastroenterologia.pl
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
4/2017
vol. 12
 
Poleć ten artykuł:
Udostępnij:
więcej
 
 
streszczenie artykułu:
Artykuł oryginalny

Position change during colonoscopy improves caecal intubation rate, mucosal visibility, and adenoma detection in patients with suboptimal caecal preparation

Vijaypal Arya, Shikha Singh, Shashank Agarwal, Ashok Valluri, Oonagh Dowling, Cristina Sison, Kalpana Arya Gupta

Data publikacji online: 2017/12/14
Pełna treść artykułu
Pobierz cytowanie
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 


Introduction: Most colonoscopies are completed in the left lateral (LL) position but in cases of suboptimal caecal preparation, changing the patient’s position to supine (S) and, if needed, to right lateral (RL) improves caecal intubation rate, mucosal visibility, and adenoma detection.

Aim: To determine if position change during colonoscopy facilitates optimal visualisation of the caecum.

Material and methods: A total of 359 patients were grouped into three categories based on the initial caecal intubation position. After caecal intubation, caecal visibility was scored on a four-point scale depending on the number of imaginary quadrants of the caecum completely visualized – Arya Caecal Prep Score. A score of 1 or 2 was unsatisfactory, while 3 or 4 was considered satisfactory. In patients with unsatisfactory score, position was changed from LL to S and then RL and visibility was scored again.

Results: The initial caecal intubation in the LL position was achieved in 66.8% of patients, S in 28.5%, and RL in 4.8% of patients. 84.5% (300/355) of patients had an acceptable visualisation score at the initial caecal intubation position. Of the 55 patients with unsatisfactory caecum visualisation scores in the initial intubation position, 30 (8.5%) had satisfactory scores after the first position change (95% CI: 5.77–11.84). Twenty-five (7.04%) subjects required two position changes (95% CI: 4.61–10.22%). An additional 9.3% (11/118) of adenomas were detected in caecum and ascending colon following position change.

Conclusions: Changing patient position improves caecal intubation rate, mucosal visibility, and adenoma detection.
referencje:
What are the key statistics about colorectal cancer? The American Cancer Society, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-key-statistics. [Accessed: 11-Aug-2015].
Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-50.
Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-96.
Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329; 1977-81.
Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362; 1795-803.
Millan MS, Gross P, Manilich E, et al. Adenoma detection rate: the real indicator of quality in colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1217-20.
Taber A, Romagnuolo J. Effect of simply recording colonoscopy withdrawal time on polyp and adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 782-6.
Gellad ZF, Weiss DG, Ahnen DJ, et al. Colonoscopy withdrawal time and risk of neoplasia at 5 years: results from VA Cooperative Studies Program 380. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1746-52.
Overholt BF, Brooks-Belli L, Grace M, et al. Withdrawal times and associated factors in colonoscopy: a quality assurance multicenter assessment. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 44: e80-6.
DeMarco DC, Odstrcil E, Lara LF, et al. Impact of experience with a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times during colonoscopy: the Third Eye Retroscope study group. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 542-50.
Bretagne JF, Hamonic S, Piette C, et al. Variations between endoscopists in rates of detection of colorectal neoplasia and their impact on a regional screening program based on colonoscopy after fecal occult blood testing. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 335-41.
Peters SL, Hasan AG, Jacobson NB, et al. Level of fellowship training increases adenoma detection rates. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 439-42.
Rogart JN, Siddiqui UD, Jamidar PA, et al. Fellow involvement may increase adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 2841-6.
Vicari J. The influence of timing of colonoscopy on adenoma detection: is timing everything? Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 1666-7.
Sanaka MR, Deepinder F, Thota PN, et al. Adenomas are detected more often in morning than in afternoon colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 1659-64.
Togashi K, Hewett DG, Radford-Smith GL, et al. The use of indigocarmine spray increases the colonoscopic detection rate of adenomas. J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 826-33.
Hüneburg R, Lammert F, Rabe C, et al. Chromocolonoscopy detects more adenomas than white light colonoscopy or narrow band imaging colonoscopy in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 316-22.
Deivert DE, Johal A, Kirchner HL, et al. Adenoma detection rates on screening colonoscopy in average risk patients at a large, rural tertiary care center. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: AB315.
East JE, Suzuki N, Arebi N, et al. Position changes improve visibility during colonoscope withdrawal: a randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 263-9.
Rabeneck L, Davila JA, El-Serag HB. Is there a true ‘shift’ to the right colon in the incidence of colorectal cancer? Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1400-9.
Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, et al. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 89-95.
Bressler B, Paszat LF, Vinden C, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 452-6.
Jelbert A, Swinson S, Atkin K, et al. Imaging of the ileocaecal valve. Tech Coloproctol 2008; 12: 87-92.
Waye JD, Rex DK, Williams CB (eds.). Colonoscopy. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK 2003.
Waye JD, Yessayan SA, Lewis BS, et al. The technique of abdominal pressure in total colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 147-51.
Hasuda K, Oda Y, Goto H, et al. The improvement of finding neoplastic lesions in colonoscopy with posture conversion. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: AB253.
East JE, Bassett P, Arebi N, et al. Dynamic patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal increase adenoma detection: a randomized, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 456-63.
Köksal AŞ, Kalkan IH, Torun S, et al. A simple method to improve adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: altering patient position. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 509-12.
© 2018 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe