Polypectomy techniques among gastroenterologists in Norway – a nationwide survey

  • Pedersen I
  • Løberg M
  • Hoff G
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background and study aims Incomplete polyp removal has been estimated to cause 27 % of all colorectal cancers detected soon after colonoscopy. There is limited information regarding polypectomy techniques among endoscopists. The article is a nationwide survey of polypectomy techniques among Norwegian endoscopists.Materials and methods We invited all board-certified gastroenterologists in Norway to complete a web-based questionnaire about their polypectomy technique. Inadequate polypectomy techniques were defined as using biopsy forceps for polyps larger than 3 mm in diameter, using hot biopsy forceps for polypectomy, and using the same electrocautery output irrespective of polyp size and morphology.Results Twenty-six of 30 Norwegian gastroenterology departments participated in the study. A total of 119 endoscopists received the survey, and 70 (59 %) responded. Mean duration of endoscopy practice was 11.5 years, and 95 % had performed more than 1,000 colonoscopies during their career. Twenty-eight endoscopists (40 %) used one or more inadequate polypectomy techniques: 10 (14.3 %) used biopsy forceps for removal of polyps larger than 3 mm in diameter, five (7.1 %) used hot biopsy for polypectomy, and 17 (24 %) used the same electrocautery output for all polypectomies. Five (7 %) endoscopists reported that they did not remove polyps smaller than 4 mm.Conclusion A substantial number of Norwegian endoscopists use inadequate polypectomy techniques. Improved training and certification of endoscopists is warranted.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pedersen, I., Løberg, M., Hoff, G., Kalager, M., Bretthauer, M., & Holme, Ø. (2018). Polypectomy techniques among gastroenterologists in Norway – a nationwide survey. Endoscopy International Open, 06(07), E812–E820. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0607-0727

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free