Systematic literature review of learning curves for colorectal polyp resection techniques in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIM: The performance of therapeutic procedures in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGI) can be challenging and carries an increased risk of adverse events. There is increasing demand for the training of endoscopists in these procedures, but limited guidelines exist concerning procedural competency. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curves for LGI polypectomy, colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). METHOD: A systematic review of electronic databases between 1946 and September 2019 was performed. Citations were included if they reported learning curve data. Outcome measures that defined the success of procedural competency were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 34 out of 598 studies met the inclusion criteria of which 28 were related to ESD, three to polypectomy and three to EMR. Outcome measures for polypectomy competency (en bloc resection, delayed bleeding and independent polypectomy rate) were achieved after completion of between 250 and 400 polypectomies and after 300 colonoscopies. EMR outcome measures, including complete resection and recurrence, were achieved variably between 50 and 300 procedures. Outcome measures for ESD included efficiency (resection rates and procedural speed) and safety (adverse events). En bloc resection rates of over 80% and R0 resection rates of over 70% were achieved at 20-40 cases and procedural speed increased after 30 ESD cases. Competency in safety metrics was variably achieved at 20-200 cases. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of data on learning curves in LGI polypectomy, EMR and ESD. Despite limited evidence, we have identified relevant outcome measures and threshold numbers for the most common LGI polyp resection techniques for potential inclusion in training programmes/credentialing guidelines.

Waiting time to lymph node biopsy is dependent on referral method: don't write, phone!

INTRODUCTION: Patients with lymphadenopathy are commonly referred to general surgeons for diagnostic lymph node biopsy. We were concerned at potential long waits for this service in our hospital and thus wanted to compare the efficiency of written and telephone referral with a view to identifying the optimum care pathway for these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients were included in a 2-year retrospective review (excluding referrals associated with breast lumps which were managed separately). Hospital Episode Statistics data were used to analyse notes for the source and method of referral, waiting time to biopsy, clinic attendance and diagnosis. RESULTS: Of referrals, 33% were from haematology and 28% from general practice. Overall, 47% of patients were referred by letter; of these, 64% were seen in clinic before biopsy. Personal referral between clinicians, by direct discussion, e-mail or fax led to a mean wait of 4 days, compared to 51 days when patients were referred by letter. Clinic attendance had no significant bearing on diagnostic accuracy or complication rate. Neoplasia accounted for 43% of diagnoses and infection (including four cases of tuberculosis) for 10%. Of biopsies, 33% showed benign changes, 8% were unrecorded and 5% were incorrect. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, 43% of biopsies revealed malignancy and we advise that lymph node biopsy requests should be managed on a fast-track pathway, expedited by direct personal request. Following this study, we have implemented a fast-track pathway for such patients.