PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A Mehran

Publications and source records attributed to A Mehran.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Colonoscopy: why are general surgeons being excluded?

BACKGROUND: The role of surgeons as endoscopists has been extensively debated in the literature, with conflicting studies published regarding the safety and efficacy of surgeons performing colonoscopies. A multitude of medical federations and societies have set various standards for granting endoscopy privileges, many with a bias against general surgeons [1, 3]. We reviewed the colonoscopy experience at our institution to evaluate differences between gastroenterologists (GI) and general (GS) and colorectal surgeons (CRS) in procedure times and complication and cecal intubation rates. METHODS: Between January 2000 and July 2002, 5237 colonoscopies were performed at our institution. The data for procedure times, completion, and complication rates were collected in a prospective database. Complications were defined as perforation, bleeding, and postpolypectomy syndrome. Incomplete colonoscopies due to colitis, poor bowel preparation, or tumor obstruction were excluded. Chi-squared test was used to compare complication and cecal intubation rates between the three groups. Median procedure times were compared using the Kruskall-Wallis and Dunn's pairwise tests. A significant p-value was defined as <0.05. RESULTS: No differences in the complication rate was noted between the three groups: GI (0.12%), CRS (0.15%), and GS (0.11%) ( p = 0.99). There was a trend toward a lower incomplete colonoscopy rate in the GS group compared to CRS and GI: 0.32% vs 0.84% and 0.36%, respectively ( p = 0.07). The median colonoscopy times for GS (29 min), however, were shorter than for GI (34 min, p < 0.001) or CRS (31 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: General surgeons perform colonoscopies expeditiously, with as low a morbidity rate and as high a completion rate as their gastroenterology or colorectal surgery colleagues. As the results of this study confirm, general surgeons should not be excluded from endoscopy suites.

Cecostomy↗
PubMed2003

Screening colonoscopy in the asymptomatic 50- to 59-year-old population.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to decrease the death rate from colorectal cancer, a multitude of medical societies and task forces recommend routine screening for colorectal cancer beginning at age 50. Yet, there is no consensus as to the best and most cost-effective screening method. Medicare now pays for screening colonoscopies for its average risk beneficiaries [3]. Many insurance companies, however, will not cover this test in younger patients. We therefore reviewed our institution's colonoscopy experience with asymptomatic 50- to 59-year-olds, with negative fecal occult blood tests and negative family histories. METHODS: Between January 1999 and January 2002, 4779 colonoscopies were performed at our institution. The charts for 619 persons 50-59 years of age were retrospectively reviewed, with 91 patients meeting the strict requirements of this study. We defined polyps with high-grade neoplasias as those with villous or tubulovillous components, and cancerous lesions included those with carcinoma in situ. The distal colon was defined as the rectum and sigmoid colon. RESULTS: There was a 58% incidence of neoplastic polyps in this younger asymptomatic population. More than 4% of our subjects had high-grade neoplasias or cancerous lesions. In the absence of any distal findings, flexible sigmoidoscopy would have missed up to 38% of these polyps. CONCLUSIONS: The findings generally support the recommendations by the American College of Gastroenterology for average-risk patients to preferentially undergo a screening colonoscopy at age 50 in lieu of other methods.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed1995

Impact of a medical back care program on utilization of services and primary care physician satisfaction in a large, multispecialty group practice health maintenance organization.

STUDY DESIGN: Samples of patients with new back pain were compared at two medical centers, one with and one without a medical back care program. OBJECTIVES: To measure the impact of a medical back care program on use of services and physician satisfaction in a health maintenance organization. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A medical back care program is staffed with specially trained primary care physicians and provides consultative and educational services to the medical center. METHODS: Program impact on services was measured by comparing the number of physician office visits, consultations, physical therapy referrals, and imaging procedures provided to a sample of patients with back pain at the two medical centers. Physician satisfaction with care provided to patients with back pain was measured by a survey sent to primary care physicians at both medical centers. RESULTS: At the medical center with a back care program, 42% fewer consultations, 59% fewer physical therapy referrals, and 33% fewer imaging procedures were ordered. Less expensive consultations with back care physicians in medicine or family practice were ordered more frequently than consultations with either neurologists or orthopedists. This change in pattern of care took place without significantly altering clinical course. The effect of the program on the rate of surgery was not measured. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the benefits of an organized medical back care program.

Adolescent↗