Endoscopic biopsy as quality assurance for endoscopic services

High-level disinfection of gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing

High level disinfection (HLD) of the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscope is not simply a slogan, but rather is a form of experimental monitoring-based medicine. By definition, GI endoscopy is a semicritical medical device. Hence, such medical devices require major quality assurance for disinfection. And because many of these items are temperature sensitive, low-temperature chemical methods, such as liquid chemical germicide, must be used rather than steam sterilization. In summarizing guidelines for infection prevention and control for GI endoscopy, there are three important steps that must be highlighted: manual washing, HLD with automated endoscope reprocessor, and drying. Strict adherence to current guidelines is required because compared to any other medical device, the GI endoscope is associated with more outbreaks linked to inadequate cleaning or disinfecting during HLD. Both experimental evaluation on the surveillance bacterial cultures and in-use clinical results have shown that, the monitoring of the stringent processes to prevent and control infection is an essential component of the broader strategy to ensure the delivery of safe endoscopy services, because endoscope reprocessing is a multistep procedure involving numerous factors that can interfere with its efficacy. Based on our years of experience in the surveillance of culture monitoring of endoscopic reprocessing, we aim in this study to carefully describe what details require attention in the GI endoscopy disinfection and to share our experience so that patients can be provided with high quality and safe medical practices. Quality management encompasses all aspects of pre- and post-procedural care including the efficiency of the endoscopy unit and reprocessing area, as well as the endoscopic procedure itself.

Diagnostic pitfall of sebaceous gland metaplasia of the esophagus

We investigated the sebaceous gland metaplasia (SGM) of the esophagus and clarified the evidence of misdiagnosis and its diagnosis pitfall. Cases of pathologically proven SGM were enrolled in the clinical analysis and reviewed description of endoscope. In the current study, we demonstrated that SGM is very rare esophageal condition with an incidence around 0.00465% and an occurrence rate of 0.41 per year. There were 57.1% of senior endoscopists identified 8 episodes of SGM. In contrast, 7.7% of junior endoscopists identified SGM in only 2 episodes. Moreover, we investigated the difference in endoscopic biopsy attempt rate between the senior and junior endoscopist (P = 0.0001). The senior endoscopists had more motivation to look for SGM than did junior endoscopists (P = 0.01). We concluded that SGM of the esophagus is rare condition that is easily and not recognized in endoscopy studies omitting pathological review.