Repeat preoperative endoscopy after regional implementation of electronic synoptic endoscopy reporting: a retrospective comparative study

Recommendations for Optimal Endoscopic Localization of Colorectal Neoplasms: A Delphi Consensus of National Experts

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the standard of care for diagnosis and evaluation of colorectal cancers before surgery. However, varied practices and heterogenous documentation affects communication between endoscopists and operating surgeons, hampering surgical planning.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop recommendations for the use of standardized localization and reporting practices for colorectal lesions identified during lower GI endoscopy.

DESIGN

A systematic review of existing endoscopy guidelines and thorough narrative review of the overall endoscopy literature were performed to identify existing practices recommended globally.

SETTING

An online Delphi process was used to establish consensus recommendations based on a literature review.

PATIENTS

Colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists from across Canada who had previously demonstrated leadership in endoscopy, managed large endoscopy programs, produced high-impact publications in the field of endoscopy, or participated in the development of endoscopy guidelines were selected to participate.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were colorectal lesion localization and documentation practice recommendations important to planning surgical or advanced endoscopic excisions.

RESULTS

A total of 129 of 197 statements achieved consensus after 3 rounds of voting by 23 experts from across Canada. There was more than 90% participation in each round. Recommendations varied according to lesion location in the cecum, colon, or rectum and whether the referral was planned for surgical or advanced endoscopic resection. Recommendations were provided for appropriate documentation, indications, location, and method of tattoo placement, in addition to photograph and real-time 3-dimensional scope configuration device use.

LIMITATIONS

Because of a paucity of evidence, recommendations are based primarily on expert opinion. There may be bias, as all representatives were based in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

Best practices to optimize endoscopic lesion localization and communication are not addressed in previous guidelines. This consensus involving national experts in colorectal surgery and gastroenterology provides a framework for efficient and effective colorectal lesion localization. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C71 .

RECOMENDACIONES PARA LA LOCALIZACIN ENDOSCPICA PTIMA DE LAS NEOPLASIAS COLORRECTALES UN CONSENSO DELPHI DE EXPERTOS NACIONALES

ANTECEDENTES:La colonoscopia es el estándar de atención para el diagnóstico y la evaluación de los cánceres colorrectales antes de la cirugía. Sin embargo, las prácticas variadas y la documentación heterogénea afectan la comunicación entre los endoscopistas y los cirujanos operadores, lo que dificulta la planificación quirúrgica.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo desarrollar recomendaciones para el uso de prácticas estandarizadas de localización y notificación de lesiones colorrectales identificadas en la endoscopia gastrointestinal inferior.DISEÑO:Se realizó una revisión sistemática de las pautas de endoscopia existentes y una revisión narrativa exhaustiva de la literatura general sobre endoscopia para identificar las prácticas existentes recomendadas a nivel mundial. Se utilizó un proceso Delphi en línea para establecer recomendaciones de consenso basadas en la revisión de la literatura.PARTICIPANTES:Se seleccionaron para participar cirujanos colorrectales y gastroenterólogos de todo Canadá que previamente habían demostrado liderazgo en endoscopia, manejado grandes programas de endoscopia, producido publicaciones de alto impacto en el campo de la endoscopia o que habían participado en el desarrollo de pautas de endoscopia.RESULTADOS:Localización de lesiones colorrectales y recomendaciones prácticas de documentación importantes para planificar escisiones quirúrgicas o endoscópicas avanzadas.RESULTADOS:129 de 197 declaraciones lograron consenso después de tres rondas de votación de 23 expertos de todo Canadá. Hubo >90% de participación en cada ronda. Las recomendaciones variaron según la ubicación de la lesión en el ciego, colon o recto, y si se planificó la derivación para resección quirúrgica o endoscópica avanzada. Se proporcionaron recomendaciones para la documentación adecuada, las indicaciones, la ubicación y el método de colocación del tatuaje, además de la fotografía y el uso del dispositivo de configuración del alcance 3D en tiempo real.LIMITACIONES:Debido a la escasez de evidencia, las recomendaciones se basan principalmente en la opinión de expertos. Puede haber sesgo, ya que los representantes tenían su sede en Canadá.CONCLUSIONES:Las mejores prácticas para optimizar la localización y comunicación de lesiones endoscópicas no se abordan en las guías anteriores. Este consenso que involucra a expertos nacionales en cirugía colorrectal y gastroenterología proporciona un marco para la localización eficiente y efectiva de lesiones colorrectales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C71 . (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Optimal endoscopic localization of colorectal neoplasms: a comparison of rural versus urban documentation practices

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing colorectal neoplasms. However, colonoscopy is often repeated preoperatively due to non-standard documentation and inconsistent practices by index endoscopists. Repeat endoscopies result in treatment delays and can increase risks of complications. National consensus recommendations were recently developed for optimal endoscopic colorectal lesion localization. We aimed to assess baseline colonoscopy practice differences from the new recommendations with a focus on geographical variability in report quality between urban and rural referral sites.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal neoplasms at a single institution in Winnipeg between 2007-2020. We compared endoscopy report quality to the national recommendations with charts stratified by endoscopy location. Our primary outcomes were overall report documentation completeness and use of recommended practices.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four patients were included (97 rural, 97 urban). The mean overall compliance with the recommendations for urban endoscopies was marginally better compared to rural endoscopies (50% vs. 48%, p = 0.04). Sixty-eight percent of the reports complied with tattoo indications (72% urban; 63% rural, p = 0.16). On average, reports included 29% of recommended tattoo information (30% urban; 28% rural, p = 0.25) and demonstrated 74% appropriate tattoo technique (70% urban; 81% rural, p = 0.10). Twenty-one percent of reports included photographs of lesions in accordance with the national recommendations (28% urban; 13% rural, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists frequently omit recommended practices for optimal colorectal lesion localization. Rural reports miss more recommended information compared to urban reports. Future research is needed to facilitate province-wide high-quality endoscopy reporting for patients regardless of endoscopy location.

A single centre audit: repeat pre-operative colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Repeat colonoscopy may be required for tumour localisation. The aim of the study is to explore the clinical settings it was used and benchmark the quality of initial colonoscopy against standardized guidelines for tumour localisation, tattooing and colonoscopy reporting amongst clinicians.

METHODS

A retrospective study from 2016 to 2021 has been performed on patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer resections at the Northern Hospital. Patient demographics, colonoscopic and operative details were retrieved from the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) Registry database and hospital medical records.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

changes in operative approach and delays to operation.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

reasons for a repeat colonoscopy and complications from repeat colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 339 patients were included in this study. 94 (28.6%) underwent a repeat colonoscopy. Re-scoping rate was 29.6% for surgeons, and 26.2% for non-operating endoscopists. Surgeons had a 5.9% localisation error rate, and non-operating endoscopist 6.95% (p = 0.673). Surgeons did not have a lower rate of repeat colonoscopy (p = 0.462). Repeat endoscopy was associated with a longer time to definitive operation (p < 0.001). No complications were associated with a repeat colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in localisation error rates or repeat colonoscopy amongst surgeons (29.6%) and non-operating endoscopists (26.2%) (p = 0.462). This could be explained by the standardized endoscopy training in Australia governed by a common training board. Lack of tattooing at index colonoscopy and inadequate documentation often led to a repeat endoscopy, which was associated with a longer time to definitive operation. Standardized guidelines in tattooing of lesions and colonoscopy reporting should be implemented.