Journals / Endoskopi / 2015 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of colonoscopy outcomes with the indications, complications, and success of the procedure in our gastroenterology unit

Gastroenteroloji ünitemizdeki kolonoskopi sonuçlarımızla birlikte, endikasyonlar komplikasyonlar ve işlem başarısının değerlendirilmesi

Journal
Endoskopi
Pages
9–13
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

One in five patients had inade- quate colon cleansing which caused extra effort and cost

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background and Aims: Currently, colonoscopy is the gold standard to de- termine colorectal pathologies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate colonoscopy results, indications, com- plications and the success of the procedure between January 2012 and July 2014 at the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit at Selcuk University.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:One in five patients had inade- quate colon cleansing which caused extra effort and cost
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background and Aims: Currently, colonoscopy is the gold standard to de- termine colorectal pathologies. Colonoscopy provides an excellent view of the mucosal surface from the anal canal to the terminal ileum. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate colonoscopy results, indications, com- plications and the success of the procedure between January 2012 and July 2014 at the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit at Selcuk University. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical charts and pathological re- sults of patients who underwent lower gastrointestinal system endoscopies during the period 2012-2014 was performed. Results: A total of 1500 pa- tients underwent colonoscopic examinations; 764 (50.9%) of the patients were male, 736 (49.1%) were female. Colonoscopic findings were as fol- lows: 48.4% of the patients had no pathology, 15% had hemorrhoids, 13.3% had polyps and 1.4% colorectal cancers. Colon cleansing was inadequate in 21.9% of patients presenting for colonoscopy. Conclusion: Approximately half of the patients had normal colonoscopic findings that suggests that the indications for colonoscopy were expanded. One in five patients had inade- quate colon cleansing which caused extra effort and cost

Özet

Bu çalışmadaki amacımız, merkezimizde yapılan kolonoskopilerde; (I) işlem isteme endikasyonlarının, (II) işlemin tamamlanma sıklığı ve tamamlanmasını engelleyen nedenlerin, (III) işlemle ilgili komplikasyonların analizi yanında, kolonoskopide tespit edilen (IV) patolojiler ve bunların makroskopik ve histopatolojik tanılarının retrospektif olarak analiz edilmesidir.GEREÇ ve YÖNTEMBu çalışmamızın sonucunda kolonoskopi endikasyonlarının geniş tutulduğu, ayrıca kolon temizliğinin yaklaşık beş hastanın birinde yetersiz olduğu, bunun da ikinci bir iş yükü ve maliyet getirdiği tespit edilmiştir

🔖

Cite This Article

KORKMAZ, H., KENDİR, İ. C., KERPİÇ, O. (2022). Evaluation of colonoscopy outcomes with the indications, complications, and success of the procedure in our gastroenterology unit. Endoskopi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1, 9–13. https://ajindex.com/articles/501128

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Minali G, Meucci G, Bartoli A, et al. The ASGE guidelines for the ap- propriate use of colonoscopy in an open access system. Gastrointest En- dosc 2000;52:39-44.
  2. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Gastrointestinal Consortium Panel: Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and ra- tionale-update based on new evidence, Gastroenterology 2003;124:544- 60. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:27-41.
  3. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med 2000;343:162-8. Vennes JA. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. In: Wyngaarden JB, Lloyd SH Jr, Bennett JC. (Editors). Cecil Textbook of Medicine, 19th Edition. Phila- delphia: W. B. Saunders Company 1992; 630-4.
  4. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ; American Cancer. Society. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:27-43.
  5. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al; Multi Society Task Force on Colo- rectal Cancer. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recom- mendations of the U.S. Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1296-308.
  6. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63(4 Suppl):S16-28. Düzce'de (12) %0.9 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Bizim verileri mizde ülseratif kolit saptanma oranı %2'dir. Kolonoskopi invaziv ve diğer görüntüleme yöntemlerine göre daha pahalı bir işlemdir. Literatürde kolonoskopi son rası %0.24-%0.33 oranında kanama, %0.08-%0.19 oranında perforasyon gibi komplikasyonlar bildirilmiştir (22). Kolo noskopi sırasında ortaya çıkabilen hipoksemi, hipotansiyon, taşikardi, miyokard iskemisi, bradikardi ve IV sedasyon sonrasında ortaya çıkabilen kardiyorespiratuar değişiklikler, kolonoskopinin komplikasyonları arasında sayılabilir (13). Kliniğimizde yapılan 1500 kolonoskopi işlemi sırasında per forasyon gözlenmedi. Buna karşın bir vakamızda midazolam ve pethidine ile yapılan sedoanesteziyi takiben anaflaksi geliş ti. Hızla intravenöz olarak yapılan adrenalin, antihistaminik ve prednisolon müdahalesi sonrası yaklaşık 5-10 dk içinde hasta klinik olarak stabil ve normal hale döndü. Ayrıca özel likle yaşlı hast