Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(10): E1386-E1390
DOI: 10.1055/a-1922-8046
Original article

Outcomes of large colorectal polyp endoscopic resections during small audience live endoscopy events with endoscopist at their home endoscopy unit

Ahmed El Rahyel
1   Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Douglas K. Rex
1   Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Live endoscopy courses are popular. The safety of performing live endoscopy has been questioned. In this study, we compared outcomes of large colorectal polyp resections during live endoscopy events (LEEs) (with a small audience of 2 to 5 physicians) to those removed during standard procedure days (SPDs) (without an audience). All procedures were performed at the endoscopist’s home unit.

Methods Retrospective assessment of the adverse event (AE) and recurrence rates for large ( ≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal lesions removed during LEEs. Logistic regression was used to assess whether presence of an audience predicted worse outcomes.

Results From January 2017 to May 2021, 317 lesions were removed with a live audience and 866 were removed on SPDs. Polyp pathology and procedure length were similar in both groups. There were 16 (5.0 %) total adverse events in the LEE group and 30 (3.4 %) in the SPD group (P = 0.224). The majority in both groups were delayed hemorrhage. There were 2 (0.6 %) perforations in the LEE and 3 (0.3 %) in the SPD group. Increasing polyp size was associated with more AEs and higher recurrence. Increasing patient age predicted higher recurrence, and thermal injury of the resection margin predicted lower recurrence. There were no other predictors of AEs or recurrence, including presence of a live audience.

Conclusions Removing large colorectal polyps with a small live audience did not increase adverse outcomes.



Publication History

Received: 27 May 2022

Accepted after revision: 10 August 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
11 August 2022

Article published online:
17 October 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Carr-Locke DL, Gostout CJ, Van Dam J. A guideline for live endoscopy courses: an ASGE White Paper. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 685-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shimizu S, Ohtsuka T, Takahata S. et al. Remote transmission of live endoscopy over the Internet: Report from the 87th Congress of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. Dig Endosc 2016; 28: 92-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Webster GJ, El Menabawey T, Arvanitakis M. et al. Live endoscopy events (LEEs): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Position Statement – Update 2021. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 842-849
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Liao Z, Li ZS, Leung JW. et al. How safe and successful are live demonstrations of therapeutic ERCP? A large multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 47-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cotton PB. Live endoscopy demonstrations are great, but. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 627-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Leung J, Chao W, Lee W. Hands-on ERCP training workshops: an experience with teaching endoscopists in China. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 306-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Schmit A, Lazaraki G, Hittelet A. et al. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during live endoscopy workshop demonstrations. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 695-699
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ridtitid W, Rerknimitr R, Treeprasertsuk S. et al. Outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during live endoscopy demonstrations. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1931-1938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ebigbo A, Freund S, Probst A. et al. Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) during live endoscopy events (LEE) – a 13-year follow-up. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E1723-e1728
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 El Rahyel AA, Abdullah N, Love E. et al. Recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection: early and late incidence, treatment outcomes, and outcomes in non-overt (histologic-only) recurrence. Gastroenterology 2021; 160: 949-951.e942
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Klein A, Tate DJ, Jayasekeran V. et al. Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins reduces adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 604-613.e603
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Pohl H, Grimm IS, Moyer MT. et al. Clip closure prevents bleeding after endoscopic resection of large colon polyps in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2019; 157: 977-984.e973
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Albéniz E, Álvarez MA, Espinós JC. et al. Clip closure after resection of large colorectal lesions with substantial risk of bleeding. Gastroenterology 2019; 157: 1213-1221.e1214
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Spadaccini M, Albéniz E, Pohl H. et al. Prophylactic clipping after colorectal endoscopic resection prevents bleeding of large, proximal polyps: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Gastroenterology 2020; 159: 148-158.e111
    Google Scholar