Mehran A, Jaffe P, Efron J, Vernava A, Liberman M A
Department of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 6101 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, FL 34119, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2003 Dec;17(12):1971-3. doi: 10.1007/s00464-003-8806-5. Epub 2003 Oct 23.
The role of surgeons as endoscopists has been extensively debated in the literature, with conflicting studies published regarding the safety and efficacy of surgeons performing colonoscopies. A multitude of medical federations and societies have set various standards for granting endoscopy privileges, many with a bias against general surgeons [1, 3]. We reviewed the colonoscopy experience at our institution to evaluate differences between gastroenterologists (GI) and general (GS) and colorectal surgeons (CRS) in procedure times and complication and cecal intubation rates.
Between January 2000 and July 2002, 5237 colonoscopies were performed at our institution. The data for procedure times, completion, and complication rates were collected in a prospective database. Complications were defined as perforation, bleeding, and postpolypectomy syndrome. Incomplete colonoscopies due to colitis, poor bowel preparation, or tumor obstruction were excluded. Chi-squared test was used to compare complication and cecal intubation rates between the three groups. Median procedure times were compared using the Kruskall-Wallis and Dunn's pairwise tests. A significant p-value was defined as <0.05.
No differences in the complication rate was noted between the three groups: GI (0.12%), CRS (0.15%), and GS (0.11%) ( p = 0.99). There was a trend toward a lower incomplete colonoscopy rate in the GS group compared to CRS and GI: 0.32% vs 0.84% and 0.36%, respectively ( p = 0.07). The median colonoscopy times for GS (29 min), however, were shorter than for GI (34 min, p < 0.001) or CRS (31 min, p < 0.001).
General surgeons perform colonoscopies expeditiously, with as low a morbidity rate and as high a completion rate as their gastroenterology or colorectal surgery colleagues. As the results of this study confirm, general surgeons should not be excluded from endoscopy suites.
外科医生作为内镜医师的角色在文献中已被广泛讨论,关于外科医生进行结肠镜检查的安全性和有效性发表了相互矛盾的研究。众多医学联合会和协会已经制定了授予内镜检查特权的各种标准,其中许多标准对普通外科医生存在偏见[1,3]。我们回顾了我们机构的结肠镜检查经验,以评估胃肠病学家(GI)、普通外科医生(GS)和结直肠外科医生(CRS)在操作时间、并发症和盲肠插管率方面的差异。
在2000年1月至2002年7月期间,我们机构进行了5237例结肠镜检查。操作时间、完成情况和并发症发生率的数据收集在一个前瞻性数据库中。并发症定义为穿孔、出血和息肉切除术后综合征。因结肠炎、肠道准备不佳或肿瘤梗阻导致的结肠镜检查不完全被排除。使用卡方检验比较三组之间的并发症和盲肠插管率。使用Kruskal-Wallis和Dunn的两两检验比较中位操作时间。显著的p值定义为<0.05。
三组之间的并发症发生率没有差异:GI组为0.12%,CRS组为0.15%,GS组为0.11%(p = 0.99)。与CRS组和GI组相比,GS组的结肠镜检查不完全率有降低的趋势:分别为0.32%、0.84%和0.36%(p = 0.07)。然而,GS组的中位结肠镜检查时间(29分钟)比GI组(34分钟,p < 0.001)或CRS组(31分钟,p < 0.001)短。
普通外科医生进行结肠镜检查迅速,发病率与胃肠病学或结直肠外科同事一样低,完成率一样高。正如本研究结果所证实的,普通外科医生不应被排除在内镜检查室之外。