Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 7329 colonoscopy procedures performed by 12 endoscopists between January 2012 and February 2014. The PDR, actual ADR, and estimated ADR of the entire, proximal, and distal colon, and within each colonic segment, in two patient age groups: <50 and ≥50 years, were calculated for each endoscopist.
Results: The overall polyp and adenoma prevalence rates were 19.1 and 9.3%, respectively. The average age of adenoma-positive patients was significantly higher than that of adenoma-negative patients (54 ± 12.6 years vs 42.9 ± 13.2 years, respectively). A total of 1739 polyps were removed, among which 826 were adenomas. More adenomatous polyps were found in the proximal colon (60.4%, 341/565) than in the distal colon (40.9%, 472/1154). Overall, both actual and estimated ADR correlated strongly at the entire colon level and within most colonic segments, except for the cecum and rectum. In both age groups, these parameters correlated strongly within the traverse colon and descending colon.
Conclusion: Caution should be exercised when predicting ADR within the sigmoid colon and rectum.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed two pictures both with white light (WL) and LCI for 54 consecutive neoplastic polyps 2-20 mm in size. All pictures were evaluated by four endoscopists according to a published polyp visibility score from four (excellent visibility) to one (poor visibility). Additionally, we calculated CD value between each polyp and surrounding mucosa in LCI and WL using an original software.
RESULTS: The mean polyp visibility scores of LCI (3.11 ± 1.05) were significantly higher than those of WL (2.50 ± 1.09, P
Methods: A survey was performed using questionnaires composed of two parts: a scenario-based questionnaire using scenarios of polyps, which were adopted from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, and an image-based questionnaire using provided endoscopic images of polyps.
Results: A total of 154 endoscopists participated in this survey. The most preferred resection techniques for diminutive (≤5 mm), small (6-9 mm), and benign-looking intermediate (10-19 mm) nonpedunculated polyps were cold forceps polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy, and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), respectively, in both the scenario- and image-based questionnaires. For benign-looking large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyps, EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) were preferred in the scenario- and image-based surveys, respectively. In case of malignant nonpedunculated polyps, EMR and ESD were preferred for intermediate-sized and large lesions, respectively, according to the scenario-based survey. However, ESD was preferred in both intermediate-sized and large malignant nonpedunculated polyps according to the image-based survey. Trainee endoscopists, endoscopists working in referral centers, and endoscopists in the colorectal cancer-prevalent countries were independently associated with preference of cold snare polypectomy for removing small polyps.
Conclusions: The polypectomy practice patterns of Asian endoscopists vary, and cold snare polypectomy was not the most preferred resection method for polyps <10 mm in size, in contrast to recent guidelines.
METHODS: Sixteen patients were recruited for voice analysis during pre-operative, within two weeks and at least three months post-operatively. Subjective questionnaire was used to assess perception of voice changes.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant changes in the acoustic parameters of patients with nasal polyposis. In patients with CRS without polyps, there was a statistically significant increase in fundamental frequency (F0) in nasal sound during early follow up. The changes in soft phonation index (SPI) values between the two groups were statistically significant during early follow-ups. Only patients with nasal polyposis perceived a subjective change in their voice post-operatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should inform all patients, especially voice professionals about the possible effects of endoscopic sinus surgeries on their voice quality.
METHODS: This study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colonoscopy (SC) or cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was performed after consent was obtained. For cases randomized to CAC, one of the three sizes of cap was used: D-201-15004 (with a diameter of 15.3 mm), D-201-14304 (14.6 mm) and D-201-12704 (13.0 mm). All of these caps were produced by Olympus Medical Systems, Japan. Independent predictors for faster cecal time and better polyp detection rate were also determined from this study.
RESULTS: There were 200 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. CAC, when compared to the SC group, had no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 97.0%, P = 0.40) and time (9.94 +/- 7.05 min vs 10.34 +/- 6.82 min, P = 0.21), or polyp detection rate (32.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.75). On the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation time by trainees (88.1% vs 84.8%, P = 0.40), ileal intubation rate (82.5% vs 79.0%, P = 0.38) or total colonoscopy time (23.24 +/- 13.95 min vs 22.56 +/- 9.94 min, P = 0.88). On multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of faster cecal time were consultant-performed procedures (P < 0.001), male patients (P < 0.001), non-usage of hyoscine (P < 0.001) and better bowel preparation (P = 0.01). The determinants of better polyp detection rate were older age (P < 0.001), no history of previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.04), patients not having esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same setting (P = 0.003), trainee-performed procedures (P = 0.01), usage of hyoscine (P = 0.01) and procedures performed for polyp follow-up (P = 0.01). The limitations of the study were that it was a single-center experience, no blinding was possible, and there were a large number of endoscopists.
CONCLUSION: CAC did not significantly different from SC in term of cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all the patients who had undergone colonoscopy at Gastroenterology endoscopy unit, Serdang Hospital from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2016. Patients who had a history of colorectal cancer, polyp or inflammatory bowel disease were excluded. Data collected which included patients' demography, indication for colonoscopy, colonoscopy finding, and histopathology results. Data was analysed with SPSS version 16.
RESULTS: Among the 559 patients who had fulfilled the inclusion criteria (68 males, 44 females), 112 patients were found to have at least one polyp giving the polyp detection rate (PDR) of 20% and 168 polypectomies were performed. The PDR among male patients was higher than that of females (22.5% vs 17.1%, p<0.05). The detection rate of polyp was nearly equal in Malays, Chinese, Indians, and Others. The polyps were more common in those of age 40 years old and above (p<0.05), with the mean age of 63.0±1.5 years. The commonest morphology of polyp in our patients was sessile (58%) and majority was medium size (5-9mm). Otherwise, the polyps were commonly found in the distal colon those that in proximal colon (55.3% vs 38.7%, p<0.05). The adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 19.1% (107/559).
CONCLUSION: The detection rate of colonic polyp from colonoscopy is 20% in our centre.
Case Report: We report a case study of parotid squamous cell carcinoma in a 29-year-old male masquerading as an ear polyp.
Conclusion: Parotid gland primary squamous cell carcinoma is a rapidly advancing neoplasm which carries poor prognosis despite multimodality treatment. Diligent clinical and histopathological evaluation is imperative to discriminate this rare aggressive disease from the metastatic and other primary cancers of the parotid. A high index of suspicion is crucial in refractory aural polyps to arrive at early diagnosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was carried out in eight patients with chronic rhinosinusitis or nasal polyposis who were planned for bilateral endoscopic sinus surgery. A Peri-operative Sinus Endoscopy (POSE) Score and Lund-Kennedy Endoscopic Score (LKES) were recorded. The use of hydrocortisone-impregnated Gelfoam dressing versus normal saline-impregnated Gelfoam dressing were compared. Scores were repeated post-operatively at one week, three weeks and three months interval.
RESULTS: For LKES, at the end of three months, 50% of the patients had the same score difference, 37.5% had better results on the study side while 12.5% had better results on the control side. Meanwhile, for POSE Score, at the end of three months, 75% of the patients had better score difference on the study side while 12.5% had better results on the control side.
CONCLUSION: Gelfoam can be used as nasal packing material to deliver topical steroid after endoscopic sinus surgery. Steroid-impregnated nasal dressing after endoscopic sinus surgery may not provide better long-term outcome.