A122 WATER EXCHANGE FACILITATES HIGH CECAL INTUBATION RATE FOLLOWING INCOMPLETE COLONOSCOPY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Incomplete colonoscopy is a complex problem that negatively affects the success of colon cancer screening programs. Failure to intubate the cecum is associated with a significant risk of missed colorectal cancer and increases costs through missed diagnoses and salvage investigations. Water exchange (WE) colonoscopy is associated with a high rate of patient comfort and cecal intubation (CI) and may be of value in preventing and following up on incomplete colonoscopy. Aims To estimate effectiveness of WE colonoscopy as initial salvage of incomplete colonoscopy. Methods All patients referred to the Kelowna Gastroenterology group for incomplete colonoscopy between Jan 2010 to Dec 2019 were included. Demographic, clinical, procedural, and pathological information were collected via retrospective chart review. Patients underwent WE colonoscopy by a single endoscopist. The outcomes evaluated were CI rate, sedation requirements, and adenoma detection. Results 116 patients met study criteria and underwent WE colonoscopy after a previously failed or incomplete colonoscopy for technical reasons. The mean age was 66 years (range 21–89). 83 (72%) patients were female. 53 (46%) patients had previous abdominal surgery, and 42 (36%) had previous pelvic surgery. 65 (56%) patients had previous bowel disease. 81 (70%) patients had previously incomplete conventional air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy, 9 (8%) patients had previously incomplete WE colonoscopy, and 5 (4%) patients underwent unsuccessful combination of WE and AI colonoscopy. 17 (15%) patients had previously incomplete flexible sigmoidoscopy, and 4 (3%) patients had previously incomplete water immersion colonoscopy. The most common cause of unsuccessful CI was redundant colon (n=39, 34%) followed by strictures/angulations (n=16, 14%). 105 (91%) patients underwent repeat WE colonoscopy only, while 7 (6%) patients had combination WE and AI colonoscopy and 4 (3%) patients had concurrent gastroscopy. CI was successful in 114 (98%) patients and unsuccessful in 2 (2%) patients. 87 (75%) study patients received conscious sedation, 16 (14%) opted for no sedation, and 7 (6%) attempted no sedation then switched to conscious sedation. 5 patients (4%) required general anesthesia. CI was achieved in all 16 unsedated patients. 236 polyps were identified in 79 (68%) patients, 2 (1%) of which were malignant. Conclusions There is no standardized approach to incomplete colonoscopy. In this cohort of patients with previous failed attempt at colonoscopy, WE as a primary technique was associated with a high success rate with minimal need for general anesthesia and a high rate of polyp detection. A significant rate of colon cancer was identified, similar to that seen in general screening populations. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».