Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Although standard colonoscopy is considered the optimal test to detect adenomas, it can have a significant adenoma miss rate. A major contributing factor to high miss rates is the inability to visualize adenomas behind haustral folds and at anatomic flexures. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic yield of balloon-assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy in the detection of simulated polyps in a colon model. DESIGN: Prospective, cohort study. SETTING: International gastroenterology meeting. SUBJECT: A colon model composed of elastic material, which mimics the flexible structure of haustral folds, allowing for dynamic responses to balloon inflation, with embedded simulated colon polyps (n = 12 silicone "polyps"). INTERVENTIONS: Fifty gastroenterologists were recruited to identify simulated colon polyps in a colon model, first using standard colonoscopy immediately followed by balloon-assisted colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Detection of simulated polyps. RESULTS: The median polyp detection rate for all simulated polyps was significantly higher with balloon-assisted as compared with standard colonoscopy (91.7% vs 45.8%, respectively; P < .0001). The significantly higher simulated polyp detection rate with balloon-assisted versus standard colonoscopy was notable both for non-obscured polyps (100.0% vs 75.0%; P < .0001) and obscured polyps (88.0% vs 25.0%; P < .0001). LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized design, use of a colon model, and simulated colon polyps. CONCLUSION: As compared with standard colonoscopy, balloon-assisted colonoscopy detected significantly more obscured and non-obscured simulated polyps in a colon model. Clinical studies in human participants are being pursued to further evaluate this new colonoscopic technology.

AIM: To ascertain fine needle aspiration (FNA) techniques by endosonographers with varying levels of experience and environments. METHODS: A survey study was performed on United States based endosonographers. The subjects completed an anonymous online electronic survey. The main outcome measurements were differences in needle choice, FNA technique, and clinical decision making among endosonographers and how this relates to years in practice, volume of EUS-FNA procedures, and practice environment. RESULTS: A total of 210 (30.8%) endosonographers completed the survey. Just over half (51.4%) identified themselves as academic/university-based practitioners. The vast majority of respondents (77.1%) identified themselves as high-volume endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (> 150 EUS/year) and high-volume FNA (> 75 FNA/year) performers (73.3). If final cytology is non-diagnostic, high-volume EUS physicians were more likely than low volume physicians to repeat FNA with a core needle (60.5% vs 31.2%; P = 0.0004), and low volume physicians were more likely to refer patients for either surgical or percutaneous biopsy, (33.4% vs 4.9%, P < 0.0001). Academic physicians were more likely to repeat FNA with a core needle (66.7%) compared to community physicians (40.2%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in EUS-FNA practices among United States endosonographers. Differences appear to be related to EUS volume and practice environment.