METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed two pictures both with white light (WL) and LCI for 54 consecutive neoplastic polyps 2-20 mm in size. All pictures were evaluated by four endoscopists according to a published polyp visibility score from four (excellent visibility) to one (poor visibility). Additionally, we calculated CD value between each polyp and surrounding mucosa in LCI and WL using an original software.
RESULTS: The mean polyp visibility scores of LCI (3.11 ± 1.05) were significantly higher than those of WL (2.50 ± 1.09, P
METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all the patients who had undergone colonoscopy at Gastroenterology endoscopy unit, Serdang Hospital from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2016. Patients who had a history of colorectal cancer, polyp or inflammatory bowel disease were excluded. Data collected which included patients' demography, indication for colonoscopy, colonoscopy finding, and histopathology results. Data was analysed with SPSS version 16.
RESULTS: Among the 559 patients who had fulfilled the inclusion criteria (68 males, 44 females), 112 patients were found to have at least one polyp giving the polyp detection rate (PDR) of 20% and 168 polypectomies were performed. The PDR among male patients was higher than that of females (22.5% vs 17.1%, p<0.05). The detection rate of polyp was nearly equal in Malays, Chinese, Indians, and Others. The polyps were more common in those of age 40 years old and above (p<0.05), with the mean age of 63.0±1.5 years. The commonest morphology of polyp in our patients was sessile (58%) and majority was medium size (5-9mm). Otherwise, the polyps were commonly found in the distal colon those that in proximal colon (55.3% vs 38.7%, p<0.05). The adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 19.1% (107/559).
CONCLUSION: The detection rate of colonic polyp from colonoscopy is 20% in our centre.
METHODS: Colonic EMRs performed for polypoid and nonpolypoid lesions at a tertiary institution were prospectively collected and analyzed for efficacy, and short and long-term complications.
RESULTS: 224 colonic neoplasms (143 flat, 65 sessile and 16 subpedunculated) were excised by the standard inject-and-cut method, with standard accessories. The median size of all lesions was 10 mm (range 2-50 mm) and 110 (49.2%) lesions were located in the proximal colon. Histological completeness of resection was achieved in 87% of cases. Of the lesions 77.2% were dysplastic, with 5 cases of carcinoma in situ and 18 severely dysplastic adenomas. Complications included bleeding in five cases (2.2 %) and a single case of perforation (0.4%). All complications were managed endoscopically. Median follow up at 24 +/- 16 months (range 12-84 months) revealed a 7.2% local recurrence rate, all of which were subsequently eradicated by repeat EMR.
CONCLUSIONS: Standard inject-and-cut colonic EMR is practical and effective in the eradication of superficial colonic neoplasia.
METHODS: In the present prospective study, 426 consecutive patients underwent colonoscopic examination between March 1997 and January 2000, for a variety of bowel symptoms. The examinations were performed by an experienced endoscopist using a standard colonoscope and methylene blue dye spraying technique. Macroscopically, flat adenomas were defined using the criteria proposed by Sawada.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine adenomas were identified in 12 patients, of which 15 were polypoid and 14 were flat, with no depressed lesions. Eight polypoidal lesions and all the flat adenomas contained mild or moderate areas of epithelial dysplasia. Seven severely dysplastic polyps were identified. One Duke's A polypoidal cancer and two advanced carcinomas were also found. All the severely dysplastic lesions and Duke's A carcinomas were found in polyps greater than 10 mm in mean size. The flat adenomas were all less than 5 mm in size.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of colonic adenomas in Malaysian patients appear as small flat lesions, which could easily be missed during endoscopy. Increased recognition and treatment of flat adenomas among colonoscopists is warranted.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional comparative study was carried out in the Otorhinolaryngology - HNS Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC). Subjective assessments of nasal symptoms and quality of life (QoL) using SNOT-22 and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and objective endoscopic assessment was undertaken using a modified Hadley endoscopic examination.
RESULTS: There was no significant statistical difference in the quality of life between the ECRSwNP and non-ECRSwNP groups as evidenced by the SNOT-22 score and the VAS comparison (p>0.05). However, there was a significant difference in terms of recurrence of disease with the presence of nasal polyps on endoscopic examination. (p = 0.016) CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we found that there is no significant difference in QoL between ECRSwNP and non- ECRSwNP. There is higher frequency of recurrence of nasal polyps amongst ECRSwNP.