[Does endoscopist fatigue play a role in incomplete colonoscopies and detection of polypoid lesions?]

The Relationship Between Colonoscopy Practice Style, Operator Ergonomics and Procedure Quality

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare three endoscopy operators who performed colonoscopy in three different styles in terms of procedure results, colonoscopy quality, and operator comfort during the procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 246 patients, who underwent routine screening colonoscopy for precancerous lesions between May and December 2022 in Istanbul Haydarpaşa Numune Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, were prospectively analyzed. The results of three different styles (single operator sitting, single operator standing, and two operators standing) were compared with each other. The following criteria were examined: polyp/adenoma detection rate, number of polyps detected per patient, cecal intubation rate, total procedure time, number of endoscope corrective maneuvers, number of patient position corrections during the procedure, and the endoscopist's subjective pain scale after the procedure.

RESULTS

 The number of corrections and changes in scope position, rates of changing the patient's position during the procedure, and the postprocedural fatigue degree of the endoscopist were the highest for the single-operator standing style (p<0.001). The total processing time and post-procedure fatigue degree of the endoscopist were the lowest for the single-operator sitting style (p<0.001). The adenoma detection rate was the highest for single-operator standing style (37.8% vs 22.0% and 29.3%). The strongest predictive factors for the total procedure time were the colonoscopy style and patient age. The strongest predictive factors for the change in the total number of detected polyps were colonoscopy style, patient gender, and patient age. Independent of all other factors, the total detected number of polyps was statistically significantly higher for the single-operator standing style compared to other styles (B=-0.217, 95% confidence interval: -0.369 - -0.066 and p=0.005) (B=-0.172, 95% confidence interval: -0.326 - -0.017 and p=0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Two conclusions were drawn from this study. For routine screening colonoscopy, the single-operator sitting style seems to be superior to other styles in terms of the shortest procedure time and the least tiring. However, the widely used single-operator standing style should be preferred over other styles in terms of the highest adenoma detection rate although it is most tiring and time-consuming.

Morning versus afternoon adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality marker of colonoscopy and operator performance. Prior studies evaluating the effect of an extended workday on the ADR reported variable outcomes that remain controversial. Given the variable results of prior studies and the potential legal implications of reduced ADR in the afternoon, we aimed to further evaluate this parameter and its effect on ADR. We performed a systematic review of the PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus electronic databases. Studies were included if they reported ADR in patients undergoing colonoscopy in the morning session and the afternoon session. Afternoon sessions included both sessions following a morning shift and half-day block shifts. Subgroup analyses were performed for ADR comparing morning and afternoon colonoscopies in a continuous workday, advanced ADRs (AADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) were also compared. Thirteen articles with 17 341 (61.2%) performed in the morning session and 10 994 (38.8%) performed in the afternoon session were included in this study. There was no statistical significance in the ADR or AADR between morning and afternoon sessions, respectively [relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.14] and (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.5). Afternoon procedures had a significantly higher PDR than morning procedures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.98). ADR was not significantly influenced in the afternoon session when operators continued to perform procedures throughout the day or on a half-day block schedule.

Comparison of efficacy of colonoscopy between the morning and afternoon: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy performed in the afternoon, rather than morning, has been reported to be associated with lower rates of adenoma and polyp detection (ADR and PDR) and cecal intubation (CIR). This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of afternoon colonoscopy relative to morning colonoscopy.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify potential relevant studies. The primary outcome was ADR and the secondary outcomes were CIR and PDR. The outcomes were estimated by relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with a random effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies with 38,063 participants met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analyses indicated that ADR (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.00-1.17) and CIR (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02) were stable during the whole day. In subgroup analyses, the effect of full-day block or inferior bowel preparation were more prominent, reflected by a significant reduction of ADR (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.09-1.28; RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01-1.24) and CIR (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13; RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03) in the afternoon, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy quality, as indicated by the ADR and CIR, is not affected by the time of day for procedures performed in block shifts. However, endoscopists' working full-day blocks and inferior bowel preparation are associated with a significant decrease in ADR and CIR in the afternoon.

Endoscopist fatigue estimates and colonoscopic adenoma detection in a large community-based setting

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopist fatigue may impact colonoscopy quality, but prior studies conflict, and minimal data exist from community-based practices where most colonoscopies are performed.

METHODS

Within a large, community-based integrated healthcare system, we evaluated the associations among 4 measures of endoscopist fatigue and colonoscopic adenoma detection from 2010 to 2013. Fatigue measures included afternoon versus morning colonoscopy and the number of GI procedures performed before a given colonoscopy, including consideration of prior procedure complexity. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 126 gastroenterologists who performed 259,064 total GI procedures (median, 6 per day; range, 1-24), including 76,445 screening and surveillance colonoscopies. Compared with morning examinations, colonoscopies in the afternoon were not associated with lower adenoma detection for screening examinations, surveillance examinations, or their combination (OR for combination, .99; 95% CI, .96-1.03). The number of procedures performed before a given colonoscopy, with or without consideration of prior procedure complexity, was also not inversely associated with adenoma detection (OR for adenoma detection for colonoscopies in the fourth quartile of fatigue based on the number of prior procedures performed vs colonoscopies performed as the first procedure of the day, .99; 95% CI, .94-1.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large community-based setting, adenoma detection for screening and surveillance colonoscopies were not associated with either time of day or the number of prior procedures performed by the endoscopist, within the range of procedure volumes evaluated. The lack of association persisted after accounting for prior procedure complexity.

What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?

In the USA, colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. Declining rates of colon cancer in the past decade have been attributed in part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps via colonoscopy. Recent emphasis has been placed on measures to increase the quality and effectiveness of colonoscopy. These have been divided into pre-procedure quality metrics (bowel preparation), procedural quality metrics (cecal intubation, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate), post-procedure metrics (surveillance interval), and other quality metrics (patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure). The purpose of this article is to review the data and controversies surrounding each of these and identify ways to optimize the performance of colonoscopy.