The impact of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography education on radiation exposure to experienced endoscopist: 'trainee effect'.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP), as with other fluoroscopic procedures, carries the risk of exposure of staff to radiation. However, over the last two decades, only a few studies have investigated this risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to evaluate the dose of radiation exposure to staff participating in ERCP procedures in a busy teaching hospital that performs more than 1,850 procedures annually. METHODS: The entire ERCP staff consisted of the experienced endoscopist, the assistant, and two nurses who were responsible for monitoring patients as well as keeping their heads in position during the procedure. RAD DOSE NEB.226 dosimeters, which were provided by the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority, were used for this study. RESULTS: Data on 110 consecutive therapeutic ERCP procedures was recorded. The mean fluoroscopy time was 5.65 ± 4.71 min. The mean fluoroscopy time of the 61 procedures performed by an experienced endoscopist alone was 5.41 ± 4.65 min, whereas the mean fluoroscopy time for the 49 procedures during which an assistant was involved was 5.94 ± 4.81 min (p = 0.56). In terms of median dose of ionizing radiation exposure to the eyes, the dose measurement per procedure in which the primary endoscopist participated alone was 72 microsievert (µSv), compared to 92 µSv when an assistant took part in theproceedings. Considering that the recommended annual equivalent dose limit to the lens of the eye is 150 mSv, by performing 1,850 procedures annually, the primary endoscopist exceeds this limit. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, taking into consideration the heavy workload in our hospital, it would seem that more experienced endoscopists are required to help provide training in ERCP, and that the use of lead acrylic goggles is required to decrease radiation exposure to the eyes.

Endosonographic evaluation of patients with suspected extraluminal compression or subepithelial lesions during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the endosonographic ultrasound (EUS) findings of patients with suspected extraluminal compression or subepithelial intramural lesions observed during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: EUS findings were grouped as follows; compression by an extramural pathologic lesion, compression by an adjacent vascular structure, compression by adjacent organs, subepithelial intramural lesion, and normal EUS. RESULTS: The data of 211 patients referred to the EUS unit between February 2004 and January 2010 for further evaluation of suspected extraluminal compression or subepithelial intramural lesions after upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrospectively analyzed. Mean age of the patients was 51.0±15.2 years, 124 (58.9%) of which were female. EUS examination was normal in 48 (22.7%) patients. EUS confirmed the presence of a pathological finding in the esophagus in 38 (92.6%) out of 41 patients when compared with abnormal findings in 122 (73.4%) of 166 patients who were evaluated for suspected lesions of the stomach (P=0.009). Suspected extraluminal compression of the esophagus (n=41) was due to a vascular structure in 17 (41.4% ) patients, an adjacent organ in four (9.7%) patients, an extramural pathological lesion in two (4.9%) patients, and a subepithelial intramural lesions in 15 (36.6%) patients, whereas in three patients (7.4%) EUS findings were normal. Of the 166 patients referred for evaluation of gastric lesions EUS findings were normal in 44 (26.5%) patients, whereas compression due to an adjacent organ was observed in 66 (39.7%) patients followed by compression by an adjacent vascular structure in 34 (20.4%) patients. An extramural pathologic lesion was discovered in 14 (8.6%) patients, whereas suspected compression was due to a subepithelial intramural lesion in eight (4.8%) patients. CONCLUSION: Accurate diagnosis of suspected extraluminal compression or subepithelial intramural lesions, particularly in the stomach, requires meticulous evaluation. EUS provides an invasive but effective option. In one-third of cases, suspected extraluminal compression of the esophagus is actually due to a subepithelial intramural lesion.