Role of Bowel Preparation in Adenoma Detection Rate and Follow-up Recommendations in African American Dominant Patient Population.

INTRODUCTION: Bowel preparation quality in colonoscopy is one of the most essential components of quality assessment. According to the latest guidelines, inadequate bowel preparation warrants repeat colonoscopy in less than a year. Our aim was to investigate the role of bowel preparation in adenoma detection rate (ADR), its relationship with patients' demographics, and compliance with subsequent surveillance recommendations with guidelines. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review study. Bowel preparation quality was divided into three categories: high, intermediate, and low. ADR and polyp detection rates (PDR) were calculated as the number of patients with adenoma or polyp divided by the total number of patients. RESULTS: Among 1,062 patients (934 African American and 128 non-African American) 81%, 11%, and 8% had high, intermediate, and low-quality bowel preparations, respectively. Race, gender, age, type of endoscopist, and body mass index did not play any role in bowel preparation quality. ADR and PDR were significantly higher in African Americans as compared to non-African Americans. ADR was significantly lower in the low-quality as compared to the high- and intermediate-quality bowel preparations (OR=2.13; p=0.0032). Bowel preparation quality was not correlated with subsequent follow-up recommendations. Academic gastroenterologists and surgeons had the highest and lowest compliance with surveillance guidelines, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Racial and gender disparity appears to have no meaningful effect on the quality of bowel preparation. Only two categories (adequate [high/intermediate] or inadequate [low-quality]) may be used for follow-up recommendations. Non-compliance with surveillance guidelines is concerning and may inadvertently increase the interval risk of colorectal cancer.

Evaluating the Improvement in Colonoscopy Quality Indicators Subsequent to Publication of Professional Society Guidelines.

Introduction  Quality metrics of colonoscopy should be routinely monitored with a focus on optimizing the patient's subsequent risk of colorectal cancer development. Documentation of bowel preparation, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and post-colonoscopy follow-up recommendations are three of the most important quality indicators for colonoscopy, but significant improvement has been challenging to achieve. The goal of this study is to determine whether the publication of colonoscopy quality indicator guidelines in 2015 resulted in an improvement in quality measures of physicians in our endoscopy suite as compared to before. Methods  We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent a screening or surveillance colonoscopy in 2014 and 2017. Colonoscopies were performed in an open-access medical center endoscopy suite, staffed by three groups of physicians (academic gastroenterologists (AGs), non-academic gastroenterologists (non-AGs), and surgeons). We gathered demographic data, bowel preparation reports, follow-up recommendations, and notice to patient's primary care physician, and calculated ADR for patients. Age- and gender-matched patients in both years were analyzed for ADR. These data were further subcategorized for each group of physicians. Results  There were 553 patients in 2014 and 1,095 in 2017. Overall, male gender and African American race constituted the majority of patients in both years. Among age- and gender-matched patients in 2014 and 2017 (412 and 243 patients, respectively), ADR within each group of endoscopists was not significantly different between these two years (AGs 44% vs. 50%; non-AGs 32% vs. 27%; surgeons 25% vs. 21%; p>0.05 for all). However, in 2014 and 2017, ADR was significantly higher in the AG group as compared to the non-AG group and surgeons (p<0.006 and p<0.0004, respectively). Reporting of bowel preparation quality (82% vs. 87%) and documenting the recommended period for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy in the report (68% vs. 78%) improved between 2014 and 2017 (p=0.002 and p=0.0001, respectively). Correct recommendations for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy only improved significantly in the AG group (74% in 2014 as compared with 82% in 2017, p=0.003). Conclusion  Based on the current guidelines, AG physicians are far exceeding the target ADR goals, and are superior compared to other groups of endoscopists. Although improvements were noted after guideline publications, areas of needed improvement with respect to meeting gastroenterology society guidelines for quality remained. The fact that individual physicians are performing and billing in an endoscopy suite staffed and equipped by a medical center creates an environment where responsibility for improvement in quality cannot be readily assigned.

Aesthetic Comparison between Subcuticular Suture and Staple Closure of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion Incision Scars: A Prospective Controlled Single-blinded Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) procedures are common and neck scar appearance is important aesthetically. This study compared subcuticular suture closure with staple closure regarding the aesthetics of the neck incision scar. METHODS: A single-blinded comparative prospective study with two cohorts involving one facility and multiple surgeons was done to study all consecutive patients who underwent one/two-level ACDF operations from 2015-2016. We excluded patients with corpectomies, postoperative wound infection, reoperations in the same admission, any previous ACDF operations, non-compliance in follow-up, and inability to give informed consent. We did single-layer skin stapling without platysma closure or subcuticular suture with platysma closure. Patients followed up between 1.5 and six months. We used the Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES), range 0-5 with five being the best score. Digital images were taken in a standardized manner and saved in a secure database. A blinded plastic surgeon and a blinded neurosurgeon, not involved in the operation, evaluated the scars using SBSES. A priori sample size using a clinically significant difference of one was determined. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used; a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We studied 93 staple and 66 suture closures. There is no significant difference between the groups regarding age, sex, the incidence of diabetes, smoking, obesity (body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2), chemotherapy or the length of the incision. There is no statistically significant difference regarding SBSES as evaluated by the plastic surgeon (staples vs. sutures, median 2 vs. 2, range 0-5, p = 0.32). There is a statistically significant difference as evaluated by the neurosurgeon (staples vs. sutures, median 4 vs. 3, range 0-5, p = 0.003). Post hoc power analysis was 0.90. CONCLUSION: Using the validated SBSES to assess the aesthetic outcome of ACDF scars, we demonstrated that staples and sutures provide equivalent aesthetic outcomes per plastic surgeon evaluation, and staple closure results in statistically significant better aesthetic outcomes per neurosurgeon evaluation.