Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Les critères de qualité de la coloscopie

  • Chapter
Post’U FMC-HGE

  • 179 Accesses

Résumé

La coloscopie reste l’examen de référence pour l’exploration morphologique du côlon. Elle est supérieure aux nouvelles méthodes d’exploration morphologique du côlon, plus particulièrement à la coloscopie virtuelle, en raison de sa capacité à dépister les lésions néoplasiques de petite taille ainsi que les adénomes plans. Contrairement aux autres méthodes, la coloscopie a l’immense avantage de réaliser dans le même temps l’exérèse des polypes. Pour autant, la coloscopie présente un certain nombre de limites. Les études de coloscopies en tandem, ou celles comparant la coloscopie à la coloscopie virtuelle nous ont appris que la coloscopie pouvait manquer des polypes, y compris ceux de taille ≧ 10 mm [1].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. Van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, Bossuyt PM, van Deventer SJ, Dekker E. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, Rothwell DM, Vinden C, Rabeneck L. Rates of newor missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 2007;132:96–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen SC, Rex DK. Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:856–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Singh H, Turner D, Xue L, Targownik LE, Bernstein CN. Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination: evidence for a 10-year interval between colonoscopies. JAMA 2006;295: 2366–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Singh H, Nugent Z, Mahmud SM, Demers AA, Bernstein CN. Predictors of colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy: A population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009 Nov 10. [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Altenhofen L, Haug U. Protection from right-and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:89–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Urbach DR, Rabeneck L. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:1–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. AmJ Gastroenterol 2006;101:873–85.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Coriat R, Pommaret E, Chryssostalis A et al. Quality control of colonoscopy procedures: a prospective validated method for the evaluation of professional practices applicable to all endoscopic units. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2009;33:103–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Napoléon B, Boneu B, Maillard L et al. Guidelines of the French Society for Digestive Endoscopy (SFED). Endoscopy 2006;38:632–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Veitch AM, Baglin TP, Gershlick AH, Harnden SM, Tighe R, Cairns S. Guidelines for the management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. Gut 2008;57:1322–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Parente F, Marino B, Crosta C. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy in the era of mass screening for colorectal cancer: a practical approach. Dig Liver Dis 2009;41:87–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lapuelle J, Abdini E, Canard JM et al. Évaluation prospective multicentrique de la qualité de la préparation colique en coloscopie chez 1019 patients. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2009;33:A180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, Fix OK, Jacobson BC. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopyoriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69(3 Pt 2):620–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ben-Horin S, Bar-Meir S, Avidan B. The outcome of a second preparation for colonoscopy after preparation failure in the first procedure. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69(3 Pt 2):626–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sánchez del Río A, Campo R, Llach J et al. Variation among endoscopy units in the achievement of the standards of colonoscopic performance indicators. Hepatogastroenterology 2008;55:1594–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ben-Horin S, Bar-Meir S, Avidan B. The impact of colon cleanliness assessment on endoscopists’ recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2680–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bond JH. Should the quality of preparation impact postcolonoscopy follow-up recommendations? Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2686–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thomas-Gibson S, Rogers P, Cooper S et al. Judgement of the quality of bowel preparation at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is associated with variability in adenoma detection rates. Endoscopy 2006; 38:456–460.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rex DK, Bond JH, Feld AD. Medicallegal risks of incident cancers after clearing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:952–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:346–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:482–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harewood GC, Wright CA, Baron TH. Assessment of patients’ perceptions of bowel preparation quality at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99: 839–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goulard H, Boussac-Zarebska M, Bloch J. Évaluation épidémiologique du programme pilote de dépistage organisé du cancer colorectal, France, 2007. Bull Epidemiol Hebd 2009;2–3: 22–4.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bretagne JF, Ponchon T. Do we need to embrace adenoma detection rate as the main quality control parameter during colonoscopy? Endoscopy 2008;40:523–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J, Michaels L, Eisen G. Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology 2008;135:1100–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rex DK. Colonoscopy: a review of its yield for cancers and adenomas by indication. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; 90:353–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bretagne JF, Manfredi S, Piette C, Hamonic S, Durand G, Riou F. Yield of high-grade dysplasia based on polyp size detected at colonoscopy: a series of 2295 examinations following a positive fecal occult blood test in a population-based study. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:339–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bretagne JF, Hamonic S, Piette C, Manfredi S, Leray E, Durand G, Riou F. Variations between endoscopists in rates of detection of colorectal neoplasia and their impact on a regional screening programbased on colonoscopy after fecal occult blood testing. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;53:335–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jacobs ET, Ahnen DJ, Ashbeck EL et al. Association between body mass index and colorectal neoplasia at follow-up colonoscopy: a pooling study. Am J Epidemiol 2009;169:657–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Johnson DA. Pay for performance: ACG guide for physicians. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2119–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen SC, Rex DK. Variable detection of nonadenomatous polyps by individual endoscopists at colonoscopy and correlation with adenoma detection. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008;42: 704–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Denis B, Sauleau EA, Gendre I, P. Perrin P. Comment évaluer les variations de rendement entre endoscopistes dans le programme national de dépistage organisé du cancer colorectal par Hémoccult? Communication orale aux JFHOD 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:2533–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH et al. Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;24:965–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Overholt BF, Brooks-Belli L, Grace M et al.Withdrawal times and associated factors in colonoscopy: A quality assurance multicenter assessment. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009 Oct 29. [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

  37. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:1091–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time ≥ 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008;135:1892–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shaukat A, Oancea C, Bond JH, Church TR, Allen JI. Variation in detection of adenomas and polyps by colonoscopy and change over time with a performance improvement program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7:1335–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bourke MJ. Making every colonoscopy count: Ensuring quality in endoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;24 Suppl 3:S43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Morini S, Hassan C, Zullo A et al. Detection of colonic polyps according to insertion/withdrawal phases of colonoscopy. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009;24:527–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Panteris V, Haringsma J, Kuipers EJ. Colonoscopy perforation rate, mechanisms and outcome: from diagnostic to therapeutic colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2009;41:941–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bokemeyer B, Bock H, Hüppe D et al. Screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer prevention: results from a German online registry on 269000 cases. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 2:650–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Crispin A, Birkner B, Munte A, Nusko G, Mansmann U. Process quality and incidence of acute complications in a series of more than 230,000 outpatient colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2009;41:1018–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Coriat R, Cacheux W, Chaussade S. Iatrogenic colonoscopic perforations: clipping or calling for a surgeon? Digestion 2008;78:214–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service des maladies de l’appareil digestif, hôpital Pontchaillou, 35033, Rennes

    J.-F. Bretagne

  2. Université de Rennes 1, Rennes

    J.-F. Bretagne

Authors
  1. J.-F. Bretagne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Michel Greff Marc Barthet Laurent Beaugerie Yoram Bouhnik Jean-Pierre Bronowicki Bruno Buecher Jacques Corallo Pierre-Adrien Dalbies Franck Devulder Philippe Ducrotte Denis Grasset Jean-Paul Jacques Jean Lapuelle Philippe Levy Olivier Nouel Patrice Pienkowski Bertrand Pujol Gilbert Tucat Pascale Rouvière

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag France, Paris

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bretagne, JF. (2010). Les critères de qualité de la coloscopie. In: Greff, M., et al. Post’U FMC-HGE. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0097-4_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0097-4_29

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-8178-0096-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-8178-0097-4

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation