Size of colorectal polyps determines time taken to remove them endoscopically

Abstract

Background an study aims Polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are effective and safe ways of removing polyps from the colon at endoscopy. Guidelines exist for advising the time allocation for diagnostic endoscopy but not for polypectomy and EMR. The aim of this study was to identify if time allocated for polypectomy and EMR at planned therapeutic lists in our endoscopy unit is sufficient for procedures to be carried out. We also wanted to identify factors that might be associated with procedures taking longer than the allocated time and to identify factors that might predict duration of these procedures.

Patients and methods A retrospective case study of planned 100 lower gastrointestinal EMR and polypectomy procedures at colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy was performed and analyzed with quantitative analysis.

Results The mean actual procedural time (APT) for 100 procedures was 52 minutes and the mean allocated time (AT) was 43.05 minutes. Hence the mean APT was 9 minutes longer than the mean AT. Factors that were significantly associated with procedures taking longer than the allocated time were patient age (P = 0.029) and polyp size (P = 0.005). Factors that significant changed the actual procedure time were patient age (P = 0.018), morphology (P = 0.002) and polyp size (P < 0.001). Procedures involving flat and lateral spreading tumor (LST) type polyps took longer than the protruding ones. On multivariate analysis, polyp size was the only factor that associated with actual procedure time. Number of polyps, quality of bowel preparation, and distance of polyp from insertion did significantly change procedure duration.

Conclusion Factors that significantly contribute to duration of polypectomy and EMR at lower gastrointestinal endoscopy include patient age and polyp size and morphology on univariate analysis, with polyp size being the factor with a significant association on multivariate analysis. We recommend that endoscopy units take these factors into consideration locally when allocating time for these procedures to be safe and effective.

• References

• 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 2 Ferrara F, Luigiano C, Ghersi S. et al. Efficacy, safety and outcomes of ‘inject and cut’ endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile and flat colorectal polyps. Digestion 2010; 82: 213-220
• 3 Mahadeva S, Rembacken BJ. Standard “inject and cut” endoscopic mucosal resection technique is practical and effective in the management of superficial colorectal neoplasms. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 417-422
• 4 Wolff WI, Shinya H. Polypectomy via the fiberoptic colonoscope. Removal of neoplasms beyond reach of the sigmoidoscope. N Engl J Med 1973; 288: 329-332
• 5 Almeida R, Paterson WG, Craig N. et al. A patient flow analysis: identification of process inefficiencies and workflow metrics at an ambulatory endoscopy unit. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 2016L: 2574076
• 6 Valori H. How many ‘points’ should there be on an endoscopy list?. Joint Advisory Group on gastrointestinal Endoscopy.. Available at: https://www.thejag.org.uk/Downloads/Unit%20Resources/How%20many%20points%20should%20there%20be%20on%20an%20endoscopy%20list.pdf
• 7 Mulder CJ, Jacobs MA, Leicester RJ. et al. Guidelines for designing a digestive disease endoscopy unit: Report of the World Endoscopy Organization. Dig Endos 2013; 25: 365-375
• 8 Swan MP, Bourke MJ, Alexander S. et al. Large refractory colonic polyps: is it time to change our practice? A prospective study of the clinical and economic impact of a tertiary referral colonic mucosal resection and polypectomy service (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1128-1136
• 9 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
• 10 Repici A, Pellicano R, Strangio G. Endoscopic mucosal resection for early colorectal neoplasia: pathologic basis, procedures, and outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 1502-1515
• 11 Soetikno RM, Inoue H, Chang KJ. Endoscopic mucosal resection. Current concepts. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2000; 10: 595-617
• 12 Lim TR, Mahesh V, Singh S. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps in typical UK hospitals. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 5324-5328
• 13 Rutter MA, Chattree A, Barbour JA. et al. British Society of gastroenterology/Association of coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colo-rectal polyps. Gut 2015; 64: 1847-1873
• 14 Rathmayer M, Scheffer H, Braun M. et al. Improvement of cost allocation in gastroenterology by introduction of a novel service catalogue covering the complete spectrum of endoscopic procedures. Z Gastroenterol 2015; 53: 183-198
• 15 Moss A, Bourke M, Williams S. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1909-1918
• 16 Rutter M, Nickerson C, Rees C. et al. Risk factors for adverse events related to polypectomy in the English Bowel cancer screening programme. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 90-97
• 17 Sansome S, Ragunath K, Bianco MA. et al. Clinical utility of the SMSA grading tool for the management of colonic neoplastic lesions. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 518-522