Browsing by Author "Burbridge, Rebecca A"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Does ampullary adenoma size predict invasion on EUS? Does invasion on EUS predict presence of malignancy?
    (Endosc Int Open, 2016-12) Patel, Vaishali; Jowell, Paul; Obando, Jorge; Guy, Cynthia D; Burbridge, Rebecca A
    Background and study aims: It is common practice to perform ampullectomy without endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for ampullary lesions < 1 cm but no data exists to support it. No studies have explored whether EUS findings of invasion correlate with malignancy or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) on pathology. We explored the association between adenoma size, pathology results, and invasion on EUS.  Patients and methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study at a large tertiary care academic hospital. Chart review was performed for 161 patients with benign ampullary lesions on endoscopic biopsy (identified by pathology records). The primary outcomes were mean size (mm) of adenomas and pathology findings with and without intraductal and/or duodenal wall invasion on EUS.  Results: Invasion was identified by EUS in 41 (34.1 %) of 120 patients who underwent EUS. The mean size of the lesion in these patients was 20.9 mm (± 11.6 mm) compared to 13.9 mm (± 11.3 mm, P = 0.0001) in patients without invasion. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC 0.73, 95 % CI 0.63 - 0.83) revealed 100 % sensitivity for absence of invasion on EUS in lesions less than 6.5 mm. Invasion on EUS had sensitivity of 63.0 % (95 % CI 47.0 % - 77.0 %) and specificity 88.0 % (95 % CI 78.0 % - 95.0 %) for presence of malignancy, HGD or invasion on pathology. Conclusions: EUS should be considered for ampullary lesions > 6.5 mm. This study provides evidence to support the practice of ampullectomy without EUS for smaller adenomas. EUS evidence of invasion is highly specific for pathologic malignancy, HGD, or invasion (which preclude endoscopic ampullectomy).
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Inconsistencies in Colonic Tattooing Practice: Differences in Reported and Actual Practices at a Tertiary Medical Center.
    (Southern medical journal, 2019-04) Spaete, Joshua P; Zheng, Jiayin; Chow, Shein-Chung; Burbridge, Rebecca A; Garman, Katherine S
    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.