Approach of Family Physicians to Pediatric Eye Screening in Diyarbakir

Objectives: In Turkey, preventive medicine services are the responsibility of family physicians and vision screening is a key component of this responsibility. In this study, we aimed to investigate the approach of family physicians to vision screening in infants and children. Materials and Methods: Data were collected using a 16-item questionnaire administered to 100 family physicians working in the center and provinces of Diyarbakir. Results: The results indicated that 88 (88%) physicians declared knowing what the red reflex test was, while 12 physicians declared that they had never heard of it. Only 16 (16%) physicians performed the test routinely and 36 (36%) physicians performed it only in suspicious cases. Ten (10%) physicians indicated that they did not refer the patients to an ophthalmologist even though they did not perform the red reflex test. Moreover, 5 (5%) physicians did not have an ophthalmoscope and 12 (12%) physicians reported not knowing how to use an ophthalmoscope. Forty (40%) of the physicians measured preschool visual acuity at least once. Sixty-six (66%) physicians referred younger children who could not express their vision problems to an ophthalmologist. Four (4%) physicians declared that they would delay surgery in children with strabismus until they were old enough for surgery. Ninety-three (93%) physicians suggested that educational seminars about vision screening would be beneficial. Conclusion: Educational seminars about vision screening may have favorable outcomes. The medical devices in family medicine centers should be improved. Vision screening can be added to the negative performance-based compensation system in order to increase physicians' attention to vision screening. To implement detailed eye screening programs like those in developed countries, an infrastructure should be established for this screening program.

What is the most accurate method for the treatment of diminutive colonic polyps?: Standard versus jumbo forceps polypectomy.

Different methods such as standard, hot, and jumbo forceps are used in endoscopic treatment of diminutive colon polyps. In the current study, it was aimed to compare efficacy and safety of standard and jumbo forceps polypectomy methods in treatment of diminutive colon polyps of ≤5 mm. Polyps with ≤5 mm which were excised during colonoscopy by using standard or jumbo forceps were evaluated. Standard and jumbo forceps polypectomy methods were randomly performed in 212 consecutive patients with diminutive colorectal polyp. One-bite polypectomy and complete resection rates were also determined among polypectomy methods. Results of 161 standard forceps polypectomy and 102 jumbo forceps polypectomy were retrospectively evaluated. Both one-bite polypectomy and complete resection rates were significantly higher in the jumbo forceps polypectomy group than the standard forceps polypectomy group (P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis performed according to polyp sizes, complete resection rate among polyps with 3-mm diameter was determined as 100%. However, numbers of bites in 4-mm and 5-mm polyps were higher in the standard forceps polypectomy group, and complete resection rate was lower than in the jumbo forceps polypectomy group (P < 0.001). Both endoscopic treatment methods may be employed in treatment of diminutive colon polyps with ≤5 mm. However, jumbo forceps polypectomy is a more effective treatment method in 4- to 5-mm polyps with high one-bite polypectomy and complete resection rate.

Cold snare polypectomy versus hot snare polypectomy in endoscopic treatment of small polyps.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The removal of small colon polyps by hot snare polypectomy (HP) is a commonly used method. Polypectomy with a cold snare (CP) has been increasingly utilized in recent years. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. Herein, we explored the efficacy and safety of each method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2012, 97 consecutive patients with small colorectal polyps ranging from 5-9 mm in size were separated into either the CP or HP group. Demographic data, the duration of polypectomy, and pathology reports were recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-seven polyps were removed from 49 patients in the CP group, and 71 polyps were removed from 48 patients in the HP group. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to gender, age distribution, number of polyps, or indications for colonoscopy. The mean polyp size was 7.21±1.4 mm in the CP group and 7.56±1.45 mm in the HP group (p=0.111). There was a significant difference in the mean procedure time between the two groups (CP, 25.71±4.3 sec; HP, 70.28±11.3 sec, p<0.001). One patient (1.3/1.4%) from each group developed post-polypectomy bleeding that required treatment. Histological evaluation revealed that 10 of the polyps (6.75%) were advanced adenomas. Pathological examination showed that the polyps were not completely removed in 4 patients (5.13%) in the CP group and 4 patients (5.63%) in the HP group (p=0.89). CONCLUSION: CP is an effective and safe method that shortens the polypectomy duration in small polyps (≤9 mm) compared to HP.