Geraghty Joe, O'Toole Paul, Anderson John, Valori Roland, Sarkar Sanchoy
Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2015 Apr;6(2):85-93. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2014-100516. Epub 2014 Dec 3.
Developments in advanced polypectomy technique provide an alternative to surgery in the management of large and complex colorectal polyps. These endoscopic techniques require expertise and can potentially incur high complication rates. This survey evaluates current UK practice, attitudes and training in advanced polypectomy.
Anonymous online questionnaire.
Colonoscopists within the UK were asked about their approach to large polyps (>2 cm).
Among the 268 respondents (64% of whom were BCSP accredited), 86% were confident in removing lesions >2 cm by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Of these, 27% were classed as low volume operators (<10 lesions resected/annum) and 14% as high volume operators (>50/annum). By comparison, only 3% currently performed endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Referring one or more benign polyps for surgery a year was common among responders of all levels (11-68%). Training deficiencies were common: only 21% of responders had received a period of training dedicated to advanced polypectomy; 58% of responders would welcome a national training scheme and a majority supported the implementation of advanced polypectomy accreditation with national guidelines. However, while 41% wanted nominated regional EMR experts, only 18% would welcome an integrated national referral network for large/complex polyps.
EMR is practised widely while ESD service provision is very limited. Most experienced colonoscopists are confident to perform piecemeal EMR, even if their training is suboptimal and annual numbers low. Practices and attitudes were variable, even among self-defined level 4 operators. Improving training and implementation of accreditation were welcomed, but there was little appetite for mandated referral to subspecialist 'experts' and national networks.
先进的息肉切除术技术的发展为大型复杂结直肠息肉的治疗提供了手术之外的另一种选择。这些内镜技术需要专业技能,且可能有较高的并发症发生率。本调查评估了英国目前在先进息肉切除术方面的实践、态度和培训情况。
匿名在线问卷。
向英国的结肠镜检查医师询问他们对大型息肉(>2厘米)的处理方法。
在268名受访者中(其中64%获得了英国结肠直肠外科医师协会认证),86%的人对通过内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)切除>2厘米的病变有信心。其中,27%被归类为低手术量操作者(每年切除病变<10个),14%为高手术量操作者(每年>50个)。相比之下,目前只有3%的人进行内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)。各级受访者中,每年将一个或多个良性息肉转诊至手术治疗的情况很常见(11%-68%)。培训不足很常见:只有21%的受访者接受过专门针对先进息肉切除术的培训;58%的受访者欢迎全国性培训计划,大多数人支持实施符合国家指南的先进息肉切除术认证。然而,虽然41%的人希望有指定的区域EMR专家,但只有18%的人欢迎建立一个针对大型/复杂息肉的全国性综合转诊网络。
EMR应用广泛,而ESD服务的提供非常有限。大多数经验丰富的结肠镜检查医师对进行分片EMR有信心,即使他们的培训不够理想且年手术量较低。即使在自我定义为4级操作者中,实践和态度也各不相同。改善培训和认证的实施受到欢迎,但对于强制转诊至专科“专家”和全国性网络的意愿不高。