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

dc.contributor.author

Spaete, Joshua P

dc.contributor.author

Zheng, Jiayin

dc.contributor.author

Chow, Shein-Chung

dc.contributor.author

Burbridge, Rebecca A

dc.contributor.author

Garman, Katherine S

dc.date.accessioned

2019-08-01T14:07:28Z

dc.date.available

2019-08-01T14:07:28Z

dc.date.issued

2019-04

dc.date.updated

2019-08-01T14:07:27Z

dc.description.abstract

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.

dc.identifier

SMJ50692

dc.identifier.issn

0038-4348

dc.identifier.issn

1541-8243

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/19130

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

Southern Medical Association

dc.relation.ispartof

Southern medical journal

dc.relation.isversionof

10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000964

dc.subject

Science & Technology

dc.subject

Life Sciences & Biomedicine

dc.subject

Medicine, General & Internal

dc.subject

General & Internal Medicine

dc.subject

colon cancer

dc.subject

colonoscopy

dc.subject

colon polyp

dc.subject

colon tattoo

dc.subject

CANCER

dc.subject

MORTALITY

dc.title

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

dc.type

Journal article

pubs.begin-page

222

pubs.end-page

227

pubs.issue

4

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

Medicine, Gastroenterology

pubs.organisational-group

Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Duke Cancer Institute

pubs.organisational-group

Institutes and Centers

pubs.organisational-group

Duke Molecular Physiology Institute

pubs.organisational-group

Duke Clinical Research Institute

pubs.organisational-group

Biostatistics & Bioinformatics

pubs.organisational-group

Basic Science Departments

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

112

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Inconsistencies in Colonic Tattooing Practice: Differences in Reported and Actual Practices at a Tertiary Medical Center.pdf
Size:
447.27 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format