Quality of Polyp Resection During Colonoscopy: Are We Achieving Polyp Clearance?
- 353 Downloads
Background and Study Aim
Currently colonoscopy quality indicators emphasize our ability to improve polyp detection (e.g., preparation quality, withdrawal times of ≥6 min). The completeness of a polyp resection may also be an important determinant of quality and efficient colonoscopy. The primary aim of this study was to determine the incidence of an incomplete polyp resection despite a perceived complete polypectomy.
Patients and Methods
This was a retrospective quality assurance project conducted at the San Diego Veterans Affair Medical Center and University of California San Diego Medical Center from July 2007 to April 2008. The patients recruited to this study were undergoing surveillance and screening colonoscopy. The resection quality was evaluated in 65 polyps of 47 patients. Twenty-two polyps were removed with standard biopsy forceps, jumbo forceps (18), hot snare (18), and cold snare (7). Biopsies were taken from the post-polypectomy site base and perimeter for histologic examination in order to confirm histologic absence of all polypoid appearing mucosa.
The post-polypectomy sites of ten polyps (15 %) were found to have residual polypoid tissue. Six were removed by standard biopsy forceps, jumbo forceps (2), hot snare (1), and cold snare (1). When compared to other polypectomy devices, standard biopsy forceps were more likely to result in an incomplete resection (27 vs. 9 %; P = 0.076).
The endoscopist may not be visually accurate in determining when a polyp is completely resected, and alternative devices and techniques for polyp resection should be considered.
KeywordsColorectal neoplasia Colon cancer screening Polypectomy Colonoscopy Biopsy forcep Snare
- 2.Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:130–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar