English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Gall Bladder (GB) polyps are abnormal growths of the inner lining that project into the lumen. They are a rare incidental radiological finding, with prevalence ranging from 0.3% to 9.5%. The majority of these frequently turn out to be pseudopolyps, however, correct follow up and management is essential as to ensure that true polyps, which may be malignant or have malignant potential, are not missed. EJG on the subject, published in 2017, tried to address controversial issues including which patients require cholecystectomy, which patients require follow up and how frequently this should be. We carried out an audit assessing adherence of our center’s management of GB polyps to the EJGs. Methods Patients were identified for this retrospective ten year cohort study bv identifying patients listed under ‘International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD 10) code K 82.8, other specified diseases of gall bladder’ on our database. Patients with other diagnoses, such as gall bladder dysfunction were excluded after review of electronic patient record (EPR) (Sunrise, Allscripts). EPRs facilitated review of emergency attendances, clinic letters, investigations and histological results for those diagnosed with a gall bladder polyp. Analysis was performed with Microsoft Excel. Results Since publication of the guidelines, 71 patients were diagnosed with a polyp. Of these, 73% were diagnosed by general surgeons and only 36% were managed according to the guidelines. We did, however, identify a strong positive trend (0.9) in improved adherence to guidelines over time. We found that guidance was more likely to be followed if the polyp was &amp;gt;10mm versus smaller (p &amp;lt; 0.01). 18% of patients (50% of those adherent to guidelines) were booked straight for laparoscopic cholecystectomy but there was a much poorer adherence to guidance concerning surveillance of polyps. There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.32) in adherence to guidance when comparing management by surgeons versus non-surgeons. Conclusions Adherence to EJG’s overall is poor in our cohort. The adherence has improved over time, and at 3 years post introduction is 62% compared to an average of 35%. The guidance is also best followed when laparoscopic cholecystectomy is indicated straight from diagnosis compared to patients who meet the criteria for surveillance.  Initial diagnosis by a non-surgical specialty does not affect adherence to guidance. Better local education amongst junior surgical grades about GB polyps, as well as increased awareness of the EJG’s may improve adherence to guidance. Further research into risk stratification and the optimal follow up of GB polyps may make surveillance guidance easier to follow and further improve compliance.

P-BN37 Audit of the Management of Gall Bladder (GB) Polyps according to European Joint Guidelines (EJG), 2017