A Pain in the Butt: Hemorrhoids, Fissures, Fistulas, and Other Anorectal Syndromes.

Painful and bothersome anorectal syndromes can be a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for clinicians because structural and functional abnormalities may often coexist and require a multidisciplinary approach to management. Although it is often difficult to attribute all of a patient's anorectal symptoms to a singular disorder with definitive intervention and cure, improving quality of life, treating coexistent conditions such as functional constipation and/or defecation disorders, addressing psychological comorbidities if present, and confirming there is no evidence of inflammatory or malignant conditions are top priorities.

Nonneoplastic polypectomy during screening colonoscopy: the impact on polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and overall cost.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of nonneoplastic polypectomy (NNP) and its impact on the polyp detection rate (PDR) is unknown. The correlation between NNP and adenoma detection rate (ADR) and its impact on the cost of colonoscopy has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of NNP in screening colonoscopy, the impact of NNP on the PDR, and the correlation of NNP with ADR. The increased cost of NNP during screening colonoscopy also was calculated. DESIGN: We reviewed all screening colonoscopies. PDR and ADR were calculated. We then calculated a nonneoplastic polyp detection rate (patients with ≥1 nonneoplastic polyp). SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent screening colonoscopies from 2010 to 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: ADR, PDR, NNP rate. RESULTS: A total of 1797 colonoscopies were reviewed. Mean (±standard deviation) PDR was 47.7%±12.0%, and mean ADR was 27.3%±6.9%. The overall NNP rate was 10.4%±7.1%, with a range of 2.4% to 28.4%. Among all polypectomies (n=2061), 276 were for nonneoplastic polyps (13.4%). Endoscopists with a higher rate of nonneoplastic polyp detection were more likely to detect an adenoma (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2). With one outlier excluded, there was a strong correlation between ADR and NNP (r=0.825; P<.001). The increased cost of removal of nonneoplastic polyps was $32,963. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSION: There is a strong correlation between adenoma detection and nonneoplastic polyp detection. The etiology is unclear, but nonneoplastic polyp detection rate may inflate the PDR for some endoscopists. NNP also adds an increased cost. Increasing the awareness of endoscopic appearances through advanced imaging techniques of normal versus neoplastic tissue may be an area to improve cost containment in screening colonoscopy.

Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening. The primary advantage of colonoscopy as opposed to other screening modalities is the ability to provide therapy by removal of precancerous lesions at the time of detection. However, colonoscopy may miss clinically important neoplastic polyps. The value of colonoscopy in reducing incidence of colorectal cancer is dependent on many factors including, the patient, provider, and facility level. A high quality examination includes adequate bowel preparation, optimal colonoscopy technique, meticulous inspection during withdrawal, identification of subtle flat lesions, and complete polypectomy. Considerable variation among institutions and endoscopists has been reported in the literature. In attempt to diminish this disparity, various approaches have been advocated to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The overall impact of these interventions is not yet well defined. Implementing optimal education and training and subsequently analyzing the impact of these endeavors in improvement of quality will be essential to augment the utility of colonoscopy for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Postcolonoscopy Followup Recommendations: Comparison with and without Use of Polyp Pathology.

Background. Appropriate recommendations for a followup exam after an index colonoscopy are an important quality indicator. Lack of knowledge of polyp pathology at the time of colonoscopy may be one reason that followup recommendations are not made. Aim. To describe and compare the accuracy of followup recommendations made at colonoscopy based on the size and number of polyps with recommendations made at a later date based on actual polyp pathology. Methods. All patients who underwent screening and surveillance colonoscopy from March, 2012, to August, 2012, were included. Surveillance recommendations from the endoscopy reports were graded as "accurate" or "not accurate" based on the postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines established by US Multisociety Task Force on Colon Cancer. Polyp pathology was then used to regrade the surveillance recommendations. Results. Followup recommendations were accurate in 759/884 (86%) of the study colonoscopies, based upon size and number of polyps with the assumption that all polyps were adenomatous. After incorporating actual polyp pathology, 717/884 (81%) colonoscopies had accurate recommendations. Conclusion. In our practice, the knowledge of actual polyp pathology does not change the surveillance recommendations made at the time of colonoscopy in the majority of patients.