Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The Polyp Manager: a new tool for optimal polyp documentation during colonoscopy. A pilot study.
van de Meeberg, Maartje M; Ouwendijk, Rob J Th; Ter Borg, Pieter C J; van den Hazel, Sven J; van de Meeberg, Paul C.
Afiliación
  • van de Meeberg MM; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Slingeland Hospital, Doetinchem, The Netherlands.
  • Ouwendijk RJ; Departement of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Ter Borg PC; Departement of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • van den Hazel SJ; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Slingeland Hospital, Doetinchem, The Netherlands.
  • van de Meeberg PC; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Slingeland Hospital, Doetinchem, The Netherlands.
Endosc Int Open ; 4(5): E572-6, 2016 May.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27227117
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND STUDY

AIMS:

Conventional reporting of polyps is often incomplete. We tested the Polyp Manager (PM), a new software application permitting the endoscopist to document polyps in real time during colonoscopy. We studied completeness of polyp descriptions, user-friendliness and the potential time benefit. PATIENTS AND

METHODS:

In two Dutch hospitals colonoscopies were performed with PM (as a touchscreen endoscopist-operated device or nurse-operated desktop application). Completeness of polyp descriptions was compared to a historical group with conventional reporting (CRH). Prospectively, we compared user-friendliness (VAS-scores) and time benefit of the endoscopist-operated PM to conventional reporting (CR) in one hospital. Duration of colonoscopy and time needed to report polyps and provide a pathology request were measured. Provided that using PM does not prolong colonoscopy, the sum of the latter two was considered as a potential time-benefit if the PM were fully integrated into a digital reporting system.

RESULTS:

A total of 144 regular colonoscopies were included in the study. Both groups were comparable with regard to patient characteristics, duration of colonoscopy and number of polyps. Using the PM did reduce incomplete documentation of the following items in CRH-reports location (96 % vs 82 %, P = 0.01), size (95 % vs 89 %, P = 0.03), aspect (71 % vs 36 %, P < 0.001) and completeness of removal (61 % vs 37 %, P < 0.001). In the prospective study 23 PM-colonoscopies where compared to 28 CR-colonoscopies. VAS-scores were significantly higher in the endoscopist-operated PM group. Time to report was 0127 ± 0143 minutes (median + interquartile range) in the entire group (PM as CR), reflecting potential time benefit per colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS:

The PM is a user-friendly tool that seems to improve completeness of polyp reporting. Once integrated with digital reporting systems, it is probably time saving as well.

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies Idioma: En Revista: Endosc Int Open Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies Idioma: En Revista: Endosc Int Open Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos