Inconsistencies in Colonic Tattooing Practice: Differences in Reported and Actual Practices at a Tertiary Medical Center.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Colonic Polyps
/ diagnosis
Colonoscopy
/ methods
Colorectal Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Documentation
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Gastroenterologists
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
/ statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Tattooing
/ methods
Tertiary Care Centers
Young Adult
Journal
Southern medical journal
ISSN: 1541-8243
Titre abrégé: South Med J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0404522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
entrez:
4
4
2019
pubmed:
4
4
2019
medline:
28
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30943541
doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000964
pii: SMJ50692
pmc: PMC6467550
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
222-227Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Oct;72(4):681-5
pubmed: 20883844
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul 20;30(21):2664-9
pubmed: 22689809
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1095-105
pubmed: 24047059
CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb;66(1):7-30
pubmed: 26742998
Am J Gastroenterol. 1996 Sep;91(9):1804-8
pubmed: 8792702
Cancer. 1958 May-Jun;11(3):607-10
pubmed: 13523569
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2018 May;14(5):314-317
pubmed: 29991940
Can J Surg. 2016 Feb;59(1):29-34
pubmed: 26812406
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Scott Med J. 2016 Aug;61(3):160-162
pubmed: 26229061