Inconsistencies in Colonic Tattooing Practice: Differences in Reported and Actual Practices at a Tertiary Medical Center

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death within the United States. Identification of previously identified colon cancer and large colon polyps at the time of surgery and repeat endoscopy is crucial to allow for accurate assessment and resection. This study reports actual and reported colonic tattooing practices as well as their impact on surgical and endoscopic evaluation at a tertiary medical center.

Objectives

Accurate localization of a colonic lesion is crucial to successful resection. Although colonic tattooing is a widely accepted technique to mark lesions for future identification surgery or repeat colonoscopy, no consensus guidelines exist. The objective of this study was to determine whether the current tattooing practice at a tertiary medical center differs from recommendations in the literature and self-reported provider practice.

Methods

The study consisted of an observational retrospective chart review of patients who received colonic tattoos, as well as a provider survey of reported tattooing practices at a tertiary academic medical center. A total of 747 patients older than 18 years of age who underwent colonoscopy with tattoo were included. Forty-four gastroenterologists performing endoscopy were surveyed on tattooing techniques.

Results

In the majority of cases, neither the number of tattoos, location of the tattoo nor the distance from the lesion was specified within the report. Following the index procedure, a tattoo was detected in 75% of surgical resections and 73% of endoscopies. At the time of surgery, however, the tattoo and/or the lesion was detected approximately 94% of the time. Twenty-five endoscopists (56.8%) completed the survey. Differences were seen the between the chart review and reported practice. Most providers report placing ≥2 marks (87.2%); however, chart review revealed that only 56.2 % were tattooed with ≥2 marks.

Conclusions

Variation exists between the reported tattooing practice and actual practice. Despite this, most tattoos are identified at the time of surgery or repeat endoscopy. Further research is needed to determine whether a standardized approach to tattooing and reporting could improve localization at repeat endoscopy.

Competence in Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography, From Training Through Independent Practice

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It is unclear whether participation in competency-based fellowship programs for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) results in high-quality care in independent practice. We measured quality indicator (QI) adherence during the first year of independent practice among physicians who completed endoscopic training with a systematic assessment of competence.

METHODS

We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of invited participants from 62 training programs. In phase 1, 24 advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs), from 20 programs, were assessed using a validated competence assessment tool. We used a comprehensive data collection and reporting system to create learning curves using cumulative sum analysis that were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. In phase 2, participating AETs entered data into a database pertaining to every EUS and ERCP examination during their first year of independent practice, anchored by key QIs.

RESULTS

By the end of training, most AETs had achieved overall technical competence (EUS 91.7%, ERCP 73.9%) and cognitive competence (EUS 91.7%, ERCP 94.1%). In phase 2 of the study, 22 AETs (91.6%) participated and completed a median of 136 EUS examinations per AET and 116 ERCP examinations per AET. Most AETs met the performance thresholds for QIs in EUS (including 94.4% diagnostic rate of adequate samples and 83.8% diagnostic yield of malignancy in pancreatic masses) and ERCP (94.9% overall cannulation rate).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective multicenter study, we found that although competence cannot be confirmed for all AETs at the end of training, most meet QI thresholds for EUS and ERCP at the end of their first year of independent practice. This finding affirms the effectiveness of training programs. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT02509416.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Interventional Symptom Management Options When Caring for Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies

Patients diagnosed with advanced stages of gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies are often quite symptomatic, with symptoms primarily related to anatomic sites of obstruction. Endoscopic approaches to the palliation of GI malignancies have begun to overtake surgical approaches as first line in interventional management. We brought together a team of interventional gastroenterologists and palliative care experts to collate practical pearls for the types of endoscopic interventions used for symptom management in patients with GI malignancies. In this article, we use a "Top 10" format to highlight issues that may help palliative care physicians recognize common presentations of advanced GI malignancies, address interventional approaches to improve symptom burden, and improve the quality of shared decision making and goals-of-care discussions.