Background and study aims Colonoscopy is physically demanding for endoscopists and patients. Repetitive movements during colonoscopy can lead to overuse injuries. We aimed to explore the prevalence and range of colonoscopy-related musculoskeletal injuries (CRIs) in endoscopists. Methods A cross-sectional electronic survey of 1825 endoscopists was performed. The sample was composed of members of the British Society of Gastroenterology, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and National Nurse Endoscopy Group (UK). The survey comprised 20 questions. These included: endoscopists’ workload, level of experience, and their perceived CRIs. All endoscopists who perform colonoscopy independently were included in the analysis. Results A total of 368 questionnaires were completed of 1825 surveyed (20.16 %). Of those, 319 participants (17.48 %) were fully independent in colonoscopy. Of 319 endoscopists, 254 (79.6 %) have experienced musculoskeletal injuries. These were reported as either possibly (n = 143, 56.3 %) or definitely (n = 90, 35.4 %) related to colonoscopy. Commonly injured areas were the lower back (n = 85, 36.5 %), neck (n = 82, 35.2 %) and left thumb (n = 79, 33.9 %). Of the injured endoscopists, 98 (30.7 %) made some modification to their practice, such as stretching exercises and ergonomic changes. Of the endoscopists, 134 (42.0 %) thought that repetitive limb strain was a likely causative mechanism. Around 40 % believed that torquing the scope and challenging body position were precipitating CRIs. Several treatment modalities were used to treat CRIs. These included; physiotherapy (n = 109), medications (n = 70), rest (n = 43), splinting (n = 31), steroid injections (n = 26) and surgery (n = 11). Conclusions A significant proportion of colonoscopists experience CRIs. The majority of the suggested modifications to practice can be adopted by any endoscopist. These results highlight the need to recognise CRI as an important occupational health hazard and to adopt preventative strategies routinely in the future.

This is the first study to assess the publication rates of UEGW. Findings are favourable with similar studies from other societies.

IntroductionAdequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for effective colonoscopy. Split bowel preparation results in optimal cleansing. This study assessed the bowel preparation regimes advised by endoscopy units across the UK, and correlated the differences with outcomes.MethodsTrusts in the UK were surveyed, with data requested between January 2018 and January 2019, including: the type and timing of preparation, pre-endoscopy diet, adequacy rates and polyp detection. Trusts were grouped according to the timing of bowel preparation. χ2 test was used to assess for differences in bowel preparation adequacy.ResultsMoviprep was the first line bowel preparation in 79% of trusts. Only 7% of trusts advised splitting bowel preparation for all procedures, however, 91% used split bowel preparation for afternoon procedures. Trusts that split preparation for all procedures had an inadequacy rate of 6.7%, compared with 8.5% (p<0.001) for those that split preparation for PM procedures alone and 9.5% (p<0.001) for those that provided day before preparation for all procedures. Morning procedures with day-before preparation had a higher rate of inadequate cleansing than afternoon procedures that received split preparation (7.7% vs 6.5 %, p<0.001). The polyp detection rate for procedures with adequate preparation was 37.1%, compared with 26.4% for those that were inadequate.ConclusionMost trusts in the UK do not provide instructions optimising the timing of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. This correlated with an increased rate of inadequate cleansing. Splitting bowel preparation is likely to reduce the impacts of poor cleansing: missed lesions, repeat colonoscopies and significant costs.

AimsThere are no studies looking at the relationship between colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) in non-screening patients. Our aim is to explore the relationship between CWT and ADR, particularly in the proximal colon where colonoscopy is shown to be less protective for the development of cancers.MethodsThis is a retrospective study during November 2015 to December 2016 of non-screening colonoscopies done at a large teaching hospital. Incomplete and therapeutic procedures were excluded. The 39 endoscopists included were 15 gastroenterologists, 10 colorectal surgeons and 14 trainee colonoscopists. CWT was calculated by reviewing caecal intubation and rectal retroflexion images.Results783 colonoscopies were included, with mean patient age of 58.51 years (SD 15.5). The mean ADR was 21.45% in the study. The CWT could be calculated for 62.83% of the cases (n=492). 80% (393) of colonoscopies had CWT of ≥6 min. Mean CWT was 9.15 min (SD 4.4). The ADR positively correlated with longer CWT (r=0.31, p=0.0001). The ADR was significantly higher when CWT was ≥8 min compared with CWT <6 min or CWT of 6–8 min (p=0.0001). More polyps were detected in the proximal colon when CWT ≥8 min (p=0.078). Mean CWT of gastroenterologists was 9.8 min (SD 4.5), similar to the trainee group (10.3 min, SD 3.8), while mean CWT for colorectal surgeons was 5.7 min (SD 3.2). The ADR for gastroenterologists was 25.9% versus 17.5% for colorectal surgeons and 17.8% for trainees.ConclusionsThere is a moderately strong positive correlation between longer CWT and ADR in non-screening colonoscopies. CWT can differ between different endoscopists. Meticulous colonoscopy withdrawal may improve polyp detection in the proximal colon.

No abstract