scholarly journals Incomplete Colonoscopy: Maximizing Completion Rates of Gastroenterologists

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 589-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayur Brahmania ◽  
Jei Park ◽  
Sigrid Svarta ◽  
Jessica Tong ◽  
Ricky Kwok ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Cecal intubation is one of the goals of a quality colonoscopy; however, many factors increasing the risk of incomplete colonoscopy have been implicated. The implications of missed pathology and the demand on health care resources for return colonoscopies pose a conundrum to many physicians. The optimal course of action after incomplete colonoscopy is unclear.OBJECTIVES: To assess endoscopic completion rates of previously incomplete colonoscopies, the methods used to complete them and the factors that led to the previous incomplete procedure.METHODS: All patients who previously underwent incomplete colonoscopy (2005 to 2010) and were referred to St Paul’s Hospital (Vancouver, British Columbia) were evaluated. Colonoscopies were re-attempted by a single endoscopist. Patient charts were reviewed retrospectively.RESULTS: A total of 90 patients (29 males) with a mean (± SD) age of 58±13.2 years were included in the analysis. Thirty patients (33%) had their initial colonoscopy performed by a gastroenterologist. Indications for initial colonoscopy included surveillance or screening (23%), abdominal pain (15%), gastrointestinal bleeding (29%), change in bowel habits or constitutional symptoms (18%), anemia (7%) and chronic diarrhea (8%). Reasons for incomplete colonoscopy included poor preparation (11%), pain or inadequate sedation (16%), tortuous colon (30%), diverticular disease (6%), obstructing mass (6%) and stricturing disease (10%). Reasons for incomplete procedures in the remaining 21% of patients were not reported by the referring physician. Eighty-seven (97%) colonoscopies were subsequently completed in a single attempt at the institution. Seventy-six (84%) colonoscopies were performed using routine manoeuvres, patient positioning and a variable-stiffness colonoscope (either standard or pediatric). A standard 160 or 180 series Olympus gastroscope (Olympus, Japan) was used in five patients (6%) to navigate through sigmoid diverticular disease; a pediatric colonoscope was used in six patients (7%) for similar reasons. Repeat colonoscopy on the remaining three patients (3%) failed: all three required surgery for strictures (two had obstructing malignant masses and one had a severe benign obstructing sigmoid diverticular stricture).CONCLUSION: Most patients with previous incomplete colonoscopy can undergo a successful repeat colonoscopy at a tertiary care centre with instruments that are readily available to most gastroenterologists. Other modalities for evaluation of the colon should be deferred until a second attempt is made at an expert centre.

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 3889
Author(s):  
Dhammike Silva ◽  
Prabath Randombage ◽  
Wedisha Gankanda

This study focuses on the importance of a safety checklist for gynecological laparoscopic surgeries. There is no dedicated safety check list for gynecological laparoscopy although several general safety checklists are used in practice. (e.g. WHO safety check list). The aim was to introduce a safety check list dedicated to gynecological laparoscopy. This check list is based on our experience in performing gynecological laparoscopy in a tertiary care centre with a high workload.  This check list is introduced after studying the complications occurring in areas covered by the check list. Present data from 776 cases performed over 4 years at professorial unit in obstetrics and gynecology, university of Sri Jayewardenepura, Colombo South teaching hospital, Kalubowila, Sri Lanka. Mean surgical time and complications associated with patient positioning were assessed. Complications associated with the areas assessed were found to be low. However, it is belief that these can be further reduced by the introduction of a check list specifically designed for gynecological laparoscopy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 289
Author(s):  
Vineet Surana ◽  
Rajesh Khadgawat ◽  
Nikhil Tandon ◽  
Chandrashekhar Bal ◽  
Kandasamy Devasenathipathy

JMS SKIMS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-49
Author(s):  
Javaid Ahmad Bhat ◽  
Shariq Rashid Masoodi

Apropos to the article by Dr Bali, titled “Mupirocin resistance in clinical isolates of methicillin-sensitive and resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a tertiary care centre of North India” (1), the authors have raised important issue of emerging antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Antimicrobial resistance is an increasingly serious threat to global public health that requires action across all government sectors and society. As per WHO, AMR lurks the effective prevention and management of an ever-increasing spectrum of infections caused by bacteria, parasites, fungi and viruses. Novel resistance mechanisms are emerging and spreading globally, threatening the man’s ability to treat common infectious diseases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document