Colonoscope retraction technique and predicting adenoma detection rate: a multicenter study
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Colonoscope retraction technique and predicting adenoma detection rate : a multicenter study. / Vilmann, Andreas Slot; Svendsen, Morten Bo Søndergaard; Lachenmeier, Christian; Søndergaard, Bo; Vilmann, Peter; Park, Yoon Soo; Svendsen, Lars Bo; Konge, Lars.
I: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Bind 95, Nr. 5, 2022, s. 1002-1010.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Colonoscope retraction technique and predicting adenoma detection rate
T2 - a multicenter study
AU - Vilmann, Andreas Slot
AU - Svendsen, Morten Bo Søndergaard
AU - Lachenmeier, Christian
AU - Søndergaard, Bo
AU - Vilmann, Peter
AU - Park, Yoon Soo
AU - Svendsen, Lars Bo
AU - Konge, Lars
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background and Aims: The success of preventing colorectal cancer relies on the expertise of the colonoscopists. Studies suggest that the retraction technique is a powerful indicator of expertise in distinguishing endoscopists with various adenoma detection rates (ADRs). We aimed to develop a retraction technique score and explore the correlation between endoscopists’ retraction technique and their ADRs. Methods: In a prospective, multicenter study, 8 colonoscopist nurses and physicians with various ADRs were included. Data from patients admitted for a colonoscopy, as part of the Danish nationwide screening program, were gathered directly from the Olympus ScopeGuide system (UPD-3; Olympus Optical, Tokyo, Japan) providing XYZ-coordinates from the coils along the length of the colonoscope. Motor skill measures were developed based on tip retraction, retraction efficiency, and retraction distance. The principal component analysis was used to study the association among the 3 measures and the historical ADR to create a combined score, the colonoscopy retraction score (CoRS). Results: Three hundred thirty-three recordings were analyzed. We demonstrated a significant and strong correlation between CoRS and ADR (.90, P < .01). Conversely, withdrawal time did not correlate significantly with ADR (.33, P = .42). In procedures without polypectomies or biopsy sampling, a significant and strong correlation was found between CoRS and ADR (.88, P < .01) and between withdrawal time and ADR (.75, P = .03). Conclusions: This study presents a novel, real-time computerized and unbiased assessment tool for colonoscopy withdrawal. CoRS strongly correlated with ADR with and without therapeutic interventions during withdrawal and could be used to ensure quality instead of minimal withdrawal time. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03587935.)
AB - Background and Aims: The success of preventing colorectal cancer relies on the expertise of the colonoscopists. Studies suggest that the retraction technique is a powerful indicator of expertise in distinguishing endoscopists with various adenoma detection rates (ADRs). We aimed to develop a retraction technique score and explore the correlation between endoscopists’ retraction technique and their ADRs. Methods: In a prospective, multicenter study, 8 colonoscopist nurses and physicians with various ADRs were included. Data from patients admitted for a colonoscopy, as part of the Danish nationwide screening program, were gathered directly from the Olympus ScopeGuide system (UPD-3; Olympus Optical, Tokyo, Japan) providing XYZ-coordinates from the coils along the length of the colonoscope. Motor skill measures were developed based on tip retraction, retraction efficiency, and retraction distance. The principal component analysis was used to study the association among the 3 measures and the historical ADR to create a combined score, the colonoscopy retraction score (CoRS). Results: Three hundred thirty-three recordings were analyzed. We demonstrated a significant and strong correlation between CoRS and ADR (.90, P < .01). Conversely, withdrawal time did not correlate significantly with ADR (.33, P = .42). In procedures without polypectomies or biopsy sampling, a significant and strong correlation was found between CoRS and ADR (.88, P < .01) and between withdrawal time and ADR (.75, P = .03). Conclusions: This study presents a novel, real-time computerized and unbiased assessment tool for colonoscopy withdrawal. CoRS strongly correlated with ADR with and without therapeutic interventions during withdrawal and could be used to ensure quality instead of minimal withdrawal time. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03587935.)
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2021.12.026
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2021.12.026
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 34979117
AN - SCOPUS:85126272442
VL - 95
SP - 1002
EP - 1010
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
SN - 0016-5107
IS - 5
ER -
ID: 318203502