Effect of Body Mass Index on Cecal Intubation Time During Unsedated Colonoscopy: Variation Across the Learning Stages of an Endoscopist.

BACKGROUND Body mass index (BMI) and endoscopists' experiences can be associated with cecal intubation time (CIT), but such associations are controversial. This study aimed to clarify the association between BMI and CIT during unsedated colonoscopy at 3 learning stages of a single endoscopist. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 1500 consecutive patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy by 1 endoscopist at our department from December 11, 2020, to August 21, 2022, were reviewed. They were divided into 3 learning stages according to the number of colonoscopies performed by 1 endoscopist, including intermediate (501-1000 colonoscopies), experienced (1001-1500 colonoscopies), and senior stages (1501-2000 colonoscopies). Variables that significantly correlated with CIT were identified by Spearman rank correlation analyses and then included in multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS Overall, 1233 patients were included. Among them, 392, 420, and 421 patients were divided into intermediate, experienced, and senior stages, respectively. Median CIT was 7.83, 6.38, and 5.58 min at intermediate, experienced, and senior stages, respectively (P.

Excellent Bowel Preparation Quality Is Not Superior to Good Bowel Preparation Quality for Improving Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rate.

Background: Adequate bowel preparation quality is essential for high-quality colonoscopy according to the current guidelines. However, the excellent effect of bowel preparation on adenoma/polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) remained controversial. Methods: During the period from December 2020 to August 2022, a total of 1566 consecutive patients underwent colonoscopy by an endoscopist. Their medical records were reviewed. According to the Boston bowel preparation scale, patients were divided into excellent, good, and poor bowel preparation quality groups. ADR/PDR, diminutive ADR/PDR, small ADR/PDR, intermediate ADR/PDR, large ADR/PDR, and number of adenomas/polyps were compared among them. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors that were significantly associated with ADR/PDR. Results: Overall, 1232 patients were included, of whom 463, 636, and 133 were assigned to the excellent, good, and poor groups, respectively. The good group had a significantly higher ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .015) and a larger number of adenomas/polyps (2.5 ± 3.2 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .030) than the poor group. Both ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .097) and number of adenomas/polyps (2.2 ± 2.8 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .219) were not significantly different between excellent and poor groups. The excellent (9% vs 4%, P = .045) and good (9% vs 4%, P = .040) groups had a significantly higher intermediate ADR/PDR than the poor group. Logistic regression analyses showed that either good (odds ratio [OR] = 1.786, 95% CI = 1.046-3.047, P = .034) or excellent (OR = 2.179, 95% CI = 1.241-3.826, P = .007) bowel preparation quality was independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with poor bowel preparation quality. Excellent (OR = 1.202, 95% CI = 0.848-1.704, P = .302) bowel preparation quality was not independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with good bowel preparation quality. Conclusions: The pursuit of excellence in bowel preparation does not show an association with increased ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps compared with a good level. In addition, our study further contributes to the existing evidence that poor bowel preparation compromises ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps.