Suppr超能文献

帽辅助结肠镜检查对结肠镜检查学习曲线和质量的影响:一项随机对照试验。

Impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy on the learning curve and quality in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.

Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.

出版信息

Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):723-732.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.06.011. Epub 2017 Jun 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy competency assessment in trainees traditionally has been informal. Comprehensive metrics such as the Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool suggest that competency thresholds are higher than assumed. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) may improve competency, but data regarding novice trainees are lacking. We compared CAC versus standard colonoscopy (SC) performed by novice trainees in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

All colonoscopies performed by 3 gastroenterology fellows without prior experience were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria included patient age <18 or >90 years, pregnancy, prior colon resection, diverticulitis, colon obstruction, severe hematochezia, referral for EMR, or a procedure done without patient sedation. Patients were randomized to either CAC or SC in a 1:1 fashion. The primary outcome was the independent cecal intubation rate (ICIR). Secondary outcomes were cecal intubation time, polyp detection rate, polyp miss rate, adenoma detection rate, ACE tool scores, and cumulative summation learning curves.

RESULTS

A total of 203 colonoscopies were analyzed, 101 in CAC and 102 in SC. CAC resulted in a significantly higher cecal intubation rate, at 79.2% in CAC compared with 66.7% in SC (P = .04). Overall cecal intubation time was significantly shorter at 13.7 minutes for CAC versus 16.5 minutes for SC (P =.02). Cecal intubation time in the case of successful independent fellow intubation was not significantly different between CAC and SC (11.6 minutes vs 12.7 minutes; P = .29). Overall ACE tool motor and cognitive scores were higher with CAC. Learning curves for ICIR approached the competency threshold earlier with cap use but reached competency for only 1 fellow. The polyp detection rate, polyp miss rate, and adenoma detection rate were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CAC resulted in significant improvement in ICIR, overall ACE tool scores, and trend toward competency on learning curves when compared with SC in colonoscopy trainees without prior colonoscopy experience. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02472730.).

摘要

背景与目的

传统上,对受训者的结肠镜检查能力评估是非正式的。全面的评估工具,如内镜检查能力评估(ACE)工具,表明能力的门槛比想象的要高。帽辅助结肠镜检查(CAC)可能会提高能力,但缺乏关于新手受训者的数据。我们比较了 CAC 与新手受训者进行的标准结肠镜检查(SC)在一项随机对照试验中的效果。

方法

所有由 3 名没有结肠镜检查经验的胃肠病学研究员进行的结肠镜检查都符合研究条件。排除标准包括患者年龄<18 岁或>90 岁、怀孕、既往结肠切除术、憩室炎、结肠梗阻、严重血便、转介行内镜下黏膜切除术(EMR)或未经患者镇静的操作。患者以 1:1 的比例随机分配至 CAC 或 SC 组。主要结局是独立盲肠插管率(ICIR)。次要结局是盲肠插管时间、息肉检出率、息肉漏检率、腺瘤检出率、ACE 工具评分和累积总和学习曲线。

结果

共分析了 203 例结肠镜检查,CAC 组 101 例,SC 组 102 例。CAC 组的盲肠插管率明显更高,为 79.2%,而 SC 组为 66.7%(P=.04)。CAC 组的总盲肠插管时间为 13.7 分钟,明显短于 SC 组的 16.5 分钟(P=.02)。在成功进行独立学员插管的情况下,CAC 组和 SC 组的盲肠插管时间无显著差异(11.6 分钟比 12.7 分钟;P=.29)。总体而言,CAC 组的 ACE 工具运动和认知评分较高。ICIR 的学习曲线使用帽后更早地接近能力阈值,但仅对 1 名学员达到了能力标准。两组间的息肉检出率、息肉漏检率和腺瘤检出率无显著差异。

结论

在没有结肠镜检查经验的结肠镜检查受训者中,与 SC 相比,CAC 显著提高了 ICIR、整体 ACE 工具评分,并且在学习曲线上有达到能力标准的趋势。(临床试验注册号:NCT02472730.)

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验