[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT:
The colonoscopic polypectomy has become a valuable procedure for removing precursors of colorectal cancer, but some complications can be occurred. The most common complication after colonoscopic polypectomy is bleeding, which is reported to range from 1% to 6% and which can be immediate or delayed. Because the management of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding could be difficult, the use of preventive technique and reductions of risk factors are essential.
From January 2007 to December 2008, delayed hemorrhage occurred in 18 of the 1,841 polypectomy patients examined by one endoscopist. These cases were reviewed retrospectively for risk factors, pathologic findings, and treatment methods.
Delayed bleeding occurred in 18/1,841 patients (0.95%). The mean age was 55.9 ± 10.9 years, and the male-to-female ratio was 8:1. The most common site was the right colon (11 cases, 61.1%), and the average polyp size was 9.2 ± 2.8 mm. Delayed bleeding was identified from 1 to 5 days after resection (mean, 1.6 ± 1.2 days). The most common macroscopic type of polyp was a sessile polyp (10 cases, 55.6%), and histologic finding was a tubular adenoma in 13 cases (72.2%). Seventeen cases were treated with clipping for hemostasis and 1 case with epinephrine injection.
The right colon and a sessile polyp were associated with an increase in delayed postpolypectomy bleeding. Reducing risk factors and close observation were essential in high risk patients, and prompt management with hemoclips was effective.
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 02/2011; 27(1):13-6. DOI:10.3393/jksc.2011.27.1.13
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT:
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie 09/2012; 26(9):589-92. · 1.97 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.