Journals / Kolon ve Rektum Hastalıkları Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2

The lower gastrointestinal endoscopic study analysis of an education hospital

Bir eğitim hastanesindeki alt gastrointestinal sistem endoskopik incelemelerinin analizi

Pages
53–58
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

If there is no necessity for colonoscopy clinically, by virtue of convenience and adaptedness, principally, sigmoidoscopy should be preferable to examination.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic analyses have huge potentials for early diagnosis of colorectal adenoma and its carcinomas, and with excision, they also have immense capabilities to lessen colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS: The retrospective analysis of patient files and pathological results acquired through the lower gastrointestinal system endoscopies from examined in-patients and out-patients were appraised in 2008.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:If there is no necessity for colonoscopy clinically, by virtue of convenience and adaptedness, principally, sigmoidoscopy should be preferable to examination.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic analyses have huge potentials for early diagnosis of colorectal adenoma and its carcinomas, and with excision, they also have immense capabilities to lessen colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. So, colonoscopy is the golden standard method to determine colorectal pathologies. But, as it was cost-effective and appropriate procedure, preference is being given to flexiable sigmoidoscopy, especially to diagnose left colonic diseases when there is no need to preparation of intestines, where there is no high complication incidence risk. As a whole, this study focused upon the evaluation of the results obtained from patients through the instrumentality of colonoscopy and FS. METHODS: The retrospective analysis of patient files and pathological results acquired through the lower gastrointestinal system endoscopies from examined in-patients and out-patients were appraised in 2008. RESULTS: 2872 (72, 2%) colonoscopy, 1110 (27. 8%) FS examinations have been performed out of 3982 patients and 50, 2% of the patients were male, 49. 8% of the patients were female. Average age of patients who were examined with colonoscopy was 54,7 ±14,83 (16-93), and the average age of patients who were examined with FS was 42,3±13,43 (15-82). Normal symptoms were observed in 76.6% of the colonoscopy patients and in 85.5% of the FS patients. Completion rate to caecum was reached to 81% by colonoscopy. Benign endoscopic symptoms were detected 8.3% of the colonoscopies and 3.5% of the FS examinations. Polyps were ascertained in 330 (11.4%) patients who examined with colonoscopy and in 89 (7. 9%) patients who examined with FS. Colorectal cancer was beheld in 102 (3.5%) colonoscopy patients and in 34 (3. 06%) FS patients.CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy has been performed more than sigmoidoscopy at the same period in our hospital. Normal lower gastrointestinal symptoms were existed endoscopically in the vast majority of both methods. If there is no necessity for colonoscopy clinically, by virtue of convenience and adaptedness, principally, sigmoidoscopy should be preferable to examination.

Özet

AMAÇ: Endoskopik incelemeler, kolorektal adenom ve karsinomlarının erken tanısı, eksizyonu ile kolorektal kanser insidansını ve mortalitesini azaltmada büyük potansiyele sahiptirler. Kolonoskopi kolorektal patolojileri saptamada altın standart yöntemdir. Sigmoidoskopi tam barsak hazırlığı gerektirmediği, daha az komplikasyon riski, daha ucuz ve daha hızlı bir yöntem olarak özellikle sol kolon hastalıklarında tercih edilmektedir. Kolonoskopi ve FS yapılan hastalarda elde edilen sonuçların değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. YÖNTEMLER: Kliniğimizde 2008 yıllında ayaktan ve yatan hastalara yapılan tüm alt gastrointestinal sistem endoskopilerinin, hasta dosyaları ve patoloji sonuçları retrospektif olarak incelendi. BULGULAR: 3982 hastanın 2872’sine (%72,2) kolonokopi 1110’una (%27,8) FS yapılmıştır, hastaların % 50,2’si erkek, %49,8’i kadın idi. Kolonoskopi yapılan hastaların yaş ortalaması 54,7 ±14,83 (16-93) yıl, FS yapılan hastaların yaş ortalaması 42,3±13,43 (15-82) yıl olarak bulundu. Normal bulgular kolonoskopi yapılanların %76,6’sında, sigmoidoskopi yapılanların %85,5’inde saptandı. Kolonoskopi planlanan hastaların %81’inde çekuma ulaşıldı. Benign endoskopik bulgular kolonoskopi yapılanların % 8,3’ünde, FS yapılan hastaların %3,5’inde saptanmıştır. Polip kolonoskopi yapılan hastaların 330 (%11,4)’ünde, FS yapılan hastaların 89 (%7,9)’unda saptanmıştır. Kolorektal kanser kolonoskopi hastalarının 102’sinde (%3,5), sigmoidoskopi hastalarının 34’ünde (%3,06) saptandı.SONUÇ: Hastanemizde aynı dönem içinde kolonoskopi sigmoidoskopiye göre daha fazla yapılmaktadır. Her iki yöntemde de hastaların büyük çoğunluğunda endoskopik olarak normal alt gastrointestinal bulguları mevcuttu. Hasta uyum kolaylığı ve uygulanabilirliği nedeniyle klinik olarak kolonoskopi gerekliliği yoksa öncelikle sigmoidoskopi tercih edilmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARIKAN, S., ERSÖZ, F., ÖZCAN, Ö., ERDÖNMEZ, N., ŞENTATAR, E., GÖZCÜL, N., SARI, S., DÖNMEZ, M. (2022). The lower gastrointestinal endoscopic study analysis of an education hospital. Kolon ve Rektum Hastalıkları Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2, 53–58. https://ajindex.com/articles/575369

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:74-108
  2. Viiala CH, Zimmerman M, Cullen DJE, Hoffman NE. Complication rates of colonoscopy in an Australian teaching hospital environment. Internal Medicine Journal 2003;33: 355-59
  3. Ransohoff DF. Colon cancer screening in 2005: status and challenges. Gastroenterology 2005;128:1685-95
  4. Haseman JH, Lemmel GT, Rahmani, et al. Failure of colonoscopy to detect colorectal cancer: evaluation of 47 cases in 20 hospitals. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1997; 45:451-55
  5. Waye J, Kahn O, Auerbach M. Complications of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1996;6:343-77
  6. Charles RJ, Chak A, Cooper GS, Wong RC, Sivak MV Jr. Use of open access in GI endoscopy at an academic medical center. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50: 480-85
  7. Mahajan RJ, Barthel JS, Marshall JB. Appropriateness of referrals for open-access endoscopy. How do physicians indifferent medical specialties do? Arch Intern Med 1996;156:2065-69
  8. Minoli G, Meucci G, Bortoli A, et al. The ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open Access system. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:39-44
  9. Morini S, Hassan C, Meucci G, et al. Diagnostic yield of open access colonoscopy according to appropriateness. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:175-79
  10. Levin TR, Conell C, Shapiro JA, et al. Complications of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastroenterology 2002;123:1786-92
  11. Minoli G. Effectiveness of colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 2005; 37: 85-86
  12. Fasoli R, Repaci G, Comin U, Minoli G. A multicentre North Italian prospective survey on some quality parameters in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 2002;34:833-41
  13. Chan TH, Goh KL. Appropriateness of colonoscopy using the ASGE guidelines: experience in a large Asian hospital. Chin J Dig Dis 2006;7:24-32
  14. Froehlich F, Pache I, Burnand B, et al. Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:128-36
  15. Appropriate use of gastrointestinal endoscopy. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:831-37
  16. Bersani G, Rossi A, Ricci G, et al. Do ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy enhance the probability of finding relevant pathologies in an open access service? Dig Liver Dis 2005;37:609-14
  17. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al. Quality in the technical performance of