Safety of first surveillance colonoscopy at 12 months after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: After piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm, guidelines recommend first endoscopic surveillance at 6 months. However, initial surveillance at 12 months may be adequate for selected low-risk lesions, and could save the cost, risk and inconvenience of one surveillance examination. METHODS: We retrospectively examined a prospectively collected database of all colorectal lesions referred to our center for endoscopic resection between August 2019 and April 2023. We report recurrence rates of colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm removed by pEMR who were assigned to 6-month first surveillance or assigned to 12-month first surveillance (or assigned to 6-month but did not return until after 10 months). RESULTS: There were 561 nonpedunculated lesions ≥ 20 mm that underwent first follow-up, including 490 lesions in 443 patients assigned to 6-month, and 71 lesions in 65 patients assigned to 12-month surveillance. Lesions assigned to 12-month surveillance were smaller (mean size 25.9 ± 6.1mm vs. 37.0 ± 17.4mm), more likely serrated (63.4% vs. 9.6%), and more often removed by cold pEMR (74.6% vs 20.4%). Twenty-nine lesions in 24 patients assigned 6-month surveillance presented after 10 months and their recurrence data were included in the group assigned 12-month surveillance. Overall recurrence rates at 6 months and 12 months were 10.0% (46/461) and 9.0% (9/100), respectively. Mean recurrence sizes at 6 and 12 months were 10.9 ± 6.2mm and 4.2 ± 1.9mm, respectively. One patient in the 6-month surveillance group had cancer at the pEMR site, but no other recurrences at 6 or 12 months had either cancer or high-grade dysplasia. CONCLUSION: Twelve-month surveillance appears acceptable for selected colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm removed by pEMR. A randomized trial comparing initial 6-month to 12-month surveillance is warranted for selected lesions.

Audit of hemostatic clip use after colorectal polyp resection in an academic endoscopy unit.

Background and study aims Prophylactic closure of endoscopic resection defects reduces delayed hemorrhage after resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm that are located proximal to the splenic flexure and removed by electrocautery. The risk of delayed hemorrhage after cold (without electrocautery) resection is much lower, and prophylactic clip closure after cold resection is generally unnecessary. The aim of this study was to audit clip use after colorectal polyp resection in routine outpatient colonoscopies at two outpatient centers within an academic medical center. Patients referred for resection of known lesions were excluded. Patients and methods Retrospective chart analysis was performed as part of a quality review of physician adherence to screening and post-polypectomy surveillance intervals. Results Among 3784 total lesions resected cold by 29 physicians, clips were placed after cold resection on 41.7% of 12 lesions ≥ 20 mm, 19.3% of 207 lesions 10 to 19 mm in size, and 2.8% of 3565 lesions 1 to 9 mm in size. Three physicians placed clips after cold resection of lesions 1 to 9 mm in 18.8%, 25.5%, and 45.0% of cases. These physicians accounted for 8.1% of 1- to 9-mm resections, but 69.7% of clips placed in this size range. Electrocautery was used for 3.1% of all resections. Clip placement overall after cold resection (3.9%) was much lower than after resection with electrocautery (71.1%), but 62.4% of all clips placed were after cold resection. Conclusions Audits of clip use in an endoscopy practice can reveal surprising findings, including high and variable rates of unnecessary use after cold resection. Audit can potentially reduce unnecessary costs, carbon emissions, and plastic waste.

One-device colonoscopy: feasibility, cost savings, and plastic waste reduction by procedure indication, when performed by a high detecting colonoscopist.

BACKGROUND: Cold forceps and snares are each effective for removing polyps of 1-3 mm, while snares are more effective for polyps of 4-10 mm in size. If, in the same patient, polyps of 1-3 mm are removed with forceps and those of 4-10 mm with snares, two devices are used. If cold snares are used to resect all lesions of 1-10 mm (one-device colonoscopy), there is a potential for lower costs and less plastic waste. METHODS: A single high detecting colonoscopist prospectively measured the feasibility of cold snaring all colorectal lesions of ≤10 mm in size, along with the associated costs and plastic waste reduction. RESULTS: 677 consecutive lower gastrointestinal endoscopies (not for inflammatory bowel disease) were assessed. Of 1430 lesions of 1-3 mm and 1685 lesions of 4-10 mm in size, 1428 (99.9%, 95%CI 99.5%-100%) and 1674 (99.3%, 95%CI 98.8%-99.7%), respectively, were successfully resected using cold snaring. Among 379 screening and surveillance patients, universal cold snaring of lesions ≤10 mm saved 35 and 47 cold forceps per 100 screening and surveillance patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cold snare resection of all lesions ≤10 mm (one-device colonoscopy) was feasible, and reduced costs and plastic waste.

2021 Patient Perceptions Regarding Colonoscopy Experience.

GOAL: We sought to document patient perceptions in 2021 regarding colonoscopy experience and potential deterrents to repeat colonoscopy. BACKGROUND AND AIM: Bowel preparation has been previously considered by patients to be the worst part of a colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective survey of consecutive patients age 18 years and older who had just completed colonoscopy at 2 outpatient endoscopy centers at a tertiary academic hospital. The short survey was conducted in the recovery area. The main outcome measure was patient perceptions of the worst part of their colonoscopy experience and which factor would most deter them from a future colonoscopy. RESULTS: Four hundred patients completed the survey of 405 approached. Average patient age was 64 years, and 48% were women. Seventy-five percent of patients used low-volume preparations. Bowel preparation was considered the worst part of colonoscopy by 71% of patients. Women were more likely to choose laxatives as the worst part of a colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was chosen most often (55%) as the most likely deterrent to a future colonoscopy. There were minimal differences in responses between those receiving low-volume versus high-volume (4 L) preparations. CONCLUSION: Bowel preparation remains the worst part of the colonoscopy experience for patients, and the most likely deterrent to future colonoscopy.

Most large colorectal polyps missed by gastroenterology fellows at colonoscopy are sessile serrated lesions.

Background and study aims Data on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion (SSL) miss rates for gastroenterology fellows during colonoscopy are limited. We aimed to describe the miss rate of fellows based on a second examination by a colonoscopist with a high rate of detection. Patients and methods Second- and third-year gastroenterology fellows at a single, tertiary center performed initial examinations. A single experienced attending doctor then performed a complete examination of the colon. We recorded the size and pathology of all lesions found at both examinations and calculated the adenoma and SSL miss rates for fellows. Results Ten trainees performed 100 examinations. Miss rates for conventional adenomas and SSLs were 30.5 % and 85.7 %, respectively. Among pre-cancerous polyps ≥ 10 mm, 10 of 14 lesions missed were SSLs. Conclusions While conventional adenoma detection skills of gastroenterology fellows are acceptable, SSL detection is poor.

Cold versus hot snare resection with or without submucosal injection of 6- to 15-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cold snare resection of colorectal lesions has been found to be safe and effective for an expanding set of colorectal lesions. In this study, we sought to understand the efficacy of simple cold snare resection and cold EMR versus hot snare resection and hot EMR for colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. METHODS: At 3 U.S. centers, 235 patients with 286 colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size were randomized to cold snaring, cold EMR, hot snaring, or hot EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. The primary outcome was complete resection determined by 4 biopsy samples from the defect margin and 1 biopsy sample from the center of the resection defect. RESULTS: The overall incomplete resection rate was 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], .8%-7.5%). All 7 incompletely removed polyps were 10 to 15 mm in size and removed by hot EMR (n = 4, 6.2%), hot snare (n = 2, 2.2%), or cold EMR (n = 1, 1.8%). Cold snaring had no incomplete resections, required less procedural time than the other methods, and was not associated with serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Cold snaring is a dominant resection technique for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03462706.).

A Review of Proximal Tibia Entry Points for Intramedullary Nailing and Validation of The Lateral Parapatellar Approach as Extra-articular.

Tibial shaft fractures are the most common long bone injury and are often treated surgically in an attempt to minimize complications. Although treatment options for tibial shaft fractures vary based on factors including open injury, severity of fracture, and soft tissue status, intramedullary nailing in adults has emerged as the preferred definitive option for stabilization. Therefore, the primary purposes of this review and cadaveric study were to evaluate the entry points for reamed tibial nails and the risks, benefits, and advantages of each approach. Due to concerns of violating the joint capsule and the generalized applicability to everyday practice of the extra-articular lateral parapatellar semi-extended technique, the secondary goal of this manuscript was to evaluate whether an intramedullary tibial nail can be consistently placed extra-articularly using the lateral parapatellar technique described by Kubiak et al. and generalizability to surgeons of varying experience.

Risk of total metachronous advanced neoplasia in patients with both small tubular adenomas and serrated polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The impact of concomitant small serrated polyps (SPs) on the risk of subsequent neoplasia when small tubular adenomas (TAs) are found is uncertain. METHODS: Patients who on index colonoscopy had ≤2 TAs of <10 mm in size in isolation were compared with those with concomitant ≤2 small-sized SPs. SP was inclusive of polyps described by pathology as sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) or proximal hyperplastic polyps (HPs) <10 mm in size. The primary endpoint was the rate of total metachronous advanced neoplasia (T-MAN) compared among the TAs in the isolation group and the groups inclusive of SPs (SSLs or proximal HPs). RESULTS: For patients with TAs and small SPs found concomitantly, the rate of T-MAN was 9.6% (24/251), which was significantly higher than the rate of T-MAN in patients with isolated small TAs (5.2% [59/1138], P = .011). Within the concomitant SP cohort, the rate of T-MAN in the proximal HP subgroup remained significantly increased (9% [19/212]) compared with the isolated small TA group (P = .037). CONCLUSIONS: When small TAs are found concomitantly with small SPs, there is an increase in the rate of T-MAN in comparison with isolated TAs. This increase in T-MAN also occurs when small TAs are found in conjunction with small proximal HPs. The presence of concomitant small SPs should be considered in determining surveillance intervals when small TAs are identified in colonoscopy screening programs.

Metastatic Cancer of Apparent Colon Origin With No Intraluminal Cancer After Resection of Colorectal Lateral Spreading Lesions.

We report a case of metastatic adenocarcinoma to the liver that presented 5 months after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of 3 benign lateral spreading adenomas in the cecum. The pathologic features of the metastatic cancer indicated a probable colonic origin. However, when the cancer was identified, there was no endoscopic evidence of recurrent polyp or another primary lesion in the colon.

Impact of Expanding Screening Colonoscopy Interval on Providers Choice of Prescribing Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

GOALS: We investigated if increasing the colonoscopy screening interval from 10 to 15 years would increase provider preferences for colonoscopy as a screening test. We further examined whether having colonoscopy performed at a 15-year interval by an endoscopist with a high adenoma detection rate would influence preferences. BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is recommended every 10 years in average risk individuals without polyps for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The use of a 15-year interval offers substantial protection, increases cost-effectiveness, and might make colonoscopy more attractive to patients and health care providers who order CRC screening tests. STUDY: An anonymous online survey of health care providers across a health care system that serves a single US state and encompasses both academic and community physicians was conducted. Physicians and nurse practitioners in family medicine, obstetrics-gynecology, and internal medicine were included. Providers were asked to indicate their preference for CRC screening tests as a proportion of tests they prescribe among 5 common screening tools. Responses were compared for current colonoscopy screening intervals and if the screening intervals are increased to 15 years. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve (34%) responded of 326 providers. Colonoscopy was the most frequently ordered test for CRC screening. Increasing screening interval from 10 to 15 years increased the choice of colonoscopy from 75.2% to 78.6% ( P =0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Expanding colonoscopy screening interval to 15 years could produce an increase in physicians and nurse practitioners choice of using colonoscopy for CRC screening, but the clinical impact appears minor. Additional surveys of patients and providers are needed.

Yield of a second right colon examination during colonoscopy after a first examination using a mucosal exposure device.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Double right colon examination during colonoscopy has been advocated to reduce the risk of interval cancer in the right colon. Whether 2 examinations are necessary when the first examination is performed with a mucosal exposure device is uncertain. We documented the rates of missed adenomas, sessile serrated lesions, and hyperplastic polyps after an initial right colon examination by a high-level detector using a mucosal exposure device. METHODS: At a single tertiary hospital outpatient practice, we prospectively collected data on the yield of a second examination of the right colon after an initial examination by a single high-detecting colonoscopist using a mucosal exposure device. RESULTS: During the study period, 1331 eligible consecutive patients underwent colonoscopy. Right colon adenoma, sessile serrated lesion, and hyperplastic polyp miss rates were 15.8%, 14.1%, and 16.7%, respectively. Four percent of patients had adenomas detected in the right colon only with a second examination. CONCLUSIONS: A second examination of the right colon is warranted, even when using a distal mucosal exposure device to perform colonoscopy.

Impact of including epinephrine in the submucosal injectate for colorectal EMR on postprocedural pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EMR is first-line therapy for colorectal laterally spreading lesions. Some colonoscopists include epinephrine in the submucosal injectate, which we observed increased postprocedure discomfort. Our aim was to determine whether inclusion of epinephrine in the submucosal injectate increases postprocedure pain after EMR. METHODS: We performed a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial comparing epinephrine in submucosal injectate versus injectate alone for abdominal pain at 30 and 60 minutes after EMR. RESULTS: Mean polyp diameter in both arms was >40 mm. There were no differences in procedure times or amounts of fluid injected. Mean pain was higher on a visual analog scale in the epinephrine group at 30 minutes (47 vs 14, P = .022) and at 60 minutes (44 vs 13, P = .035). Recovery room stay was longer in the epinephrine group (68 vs 53 minutes, P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: Epinephrine in the submucosal injectate for EMR increases postprocedural pain, which could cause diagnostic confusion and prolong observation time in the recovery area. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04065451.).

Implications of stable or increasing adenoma detection rate on the need for continuous measurement.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Measurement of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is resource intensive, and the benefit of continuous measurement for colonoscopists with high ADR is unclear. We examined the ADR trends at our center to determine whether continuous measurement for consistently high ADR is warranted. METHODS: Among colonoscopies performed between January 1999 and November 2019 at a tertiary center, we analyzed data from colonoscopists performing at least 50 screening colonoscopies annually for 5 consecutive years. ADR trends for individual colonoscopists were examined using Joinpoint regression models. RESULTS: Eleven colonoscopists performed screening colonoscopies on 14,047 patients, and 5912 among them had at least 1 conventional adenoma removed (42.0%). Of 25,829 polyps, 13,585 (52.6%) were conventional adenomas or adenocarcinomas and contributed to ADR calculation. All but 1 colonoscopist included met the recommended minimum threshold ADR of 25% continuously over the study period. Of the 11 colonoscopists, 5 had an increase in their ADR and the remaining 6 had stable ADRs over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: For colonoscopists consistently performing above the minimum threshold, diversion of resources toward improvement of quality measures other than ADR is justified.

Adverse events and residual lesion rate after cold endoscopic mucosal resection of serrated lesions ≥10 mm.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cold EMR is being increasingly used for large serrated lesions. We sought to measure residual lesion rates and adverse events after cold EMR of large serrated lesions. METHODS: In a single academic center, we retrospectively examined a database of serrated class lesions ≥10 mm removed with cold EMR for safety and efficacy. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-six serrated lesions ≥10 mm in size were removed from 312 patients. We successfully contacted 223 patients (71.5%) with no reported serious adverse events that required hospitalization, repeat endoscopy, or transfusion. The residual lesion rate per lesion at first follow-up colonoscopy was 18 of 225 (8%; 95% confidence interval, 5-12.1). Lesions with residual were larger at polypectomy compared with lesions without recurrence (median, 23 mm versus 16 mm, P = .017). CONCLUSION: Cold EMR appears to be safe and effective for the removal of large serrated lesions.

Colorectal EMR outcomes in octogenarians versus younger patients referred for removal of large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data are limited on safety and outcomes of colorectal EMR in octogenarians (≥80 years old). We sought to review outcome data for patients aged ≥80 in a prospectively collected database of patients referred for large polyp removal. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a database of patients referred for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyp removal. From 2000 to 2019, we compared the rates of follow-up, recurrence, adverse events, and synchronous neoplasia detection between younger patients and patients aged ≥80. RESULTS: There were 167 patients aged ≥80 years and 1686 <80 years. Patients in the elderly group returned for surveillance less often (67.1% vs 75.1%, P = .024), had greater first follow-up recurrence rates (27.5% vs 13.8%, P < .001), but had similar adverse event rates (1.8% vs 2.8%, P = .619) compared with younger patients. Rates of synchronous neoplasia were similar and high in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: EMR is safe and well tolerated for large polyp removal in patients over 80 years old. Patients aged ≥80 years are less likely to present for follow-up after EMR. They had a higher recurrence rate and a similarly high prevalence of synchronous precancerous lesions. Follow-up after EMR should be encouraged in the elderly, and an attempt to clear the colon of synchronous disease at the time of the initial EMR may be warranted.

Treatment of Periprosthetic Nonunions of the Lower Extremity.

Multiple studies have reported nonunion rates of 3% to 17% following peri-prosthetic fractures. Determining management strategies based on the available literature is difficult because existing studies are small and involve heterogeneous treatments and multiple surgeons. The purpose of this study was to describe a consecutive series of patients who presented to the authors' clinic with a periprosthetic nonunion of the lower extremity and to report the methods used to achieve limb salvage and the associated complications. Patients were included if they were indicated for surgery for a nonunion of a periprosthetic fracture of the lower extremity that had previously undergone either closed or open intervention. A total of 26 patients were included in this study. Average follow-up was 58 months. Average age was 69 years, and 77% of the patients were female. Twenty-three patients had periprosthetic nonunions of the femur, with 6 being associated with total hip arthroplasty, 15 with total knee arthroplasty, and 2 with both a total hip arthroplasty and a total knee arthroplasty. Three patients had a periprosthetic nonunion of the tibia associated with a total knee arthroplasty. Limb salvage was successful in 25 of 26 cases. This was achieved by either healing of the nonunion using exuberant fixation with prosthesis revision when necessary (n=20) or resection of the nonunion with placement of a tumor prosthesis (n=5). Four of the 26 patients (15%) incurred at least 1 complication during treatment. Exuberant fixation of the nonunion (with prosthesis revision when necessary) or nonunion resection with placement of a tumor prosthesis was successful in 96% of cases. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(4):209-214.].

Long-Term Assessment of the Cecal Intubation Rates in High-Performing Colonoscopists: Time for Review.

OBJECTIVES: The cecal intubation rate (CIR) is one of the 3 priority indicators for quality in colonoscopy. Whether continuous measurement of CIR is useful in high performers is uncertain. METHODS: At an academic center, we identified 16 physicians who performed at least 50 procedures over 6 consecutive years. We analyzed all colonoscopy procedures excluding those with poor/inadequate preparation or severe colitis for CIR trend over the years. We calculated the numbers needed to establish CIR over minimum threshold levels with 95% confidence. RESULTS: The overall CIR was 99.4%. None of the 16 physicians had a CIR <96.6% in any year. Sensitivity analyses including patients without intent to reach the cecum and inadequate bowel preparation had little impact on the results. Overall cecal photo documentation rate was 98.4%. No significant correlation was observed between procedure volume at our center and CIR (σ = -0.196, P = 0.483). Physicians with CIR ≥99% need to have only 24 examinations reviewed to establish CIR is >95%. DISCUSSION: Continuous measurement of CIR, at least in high performers, appears to be of limited value. Very high performers need to evaluate small number of cases to demonstrate that CIR is above the recommended thresholds.