Literature DB >> 10344426

Depth of insertion at flexible sigmoidoscopy: implications for colorectal cancer screening and instrument design.

J Painter1, D B Saunders, G D Bell, C B Williams, R Pitt, J Bladen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The depth of insertion at flexible sigmoidoscopy is variable, depending upon bowel preparation, patient tolerance and distal colonic anatomy. Many endoscopists routinely aim to insert the 60 cm flexible sigmoidoscope to the splenic flexure; however internal endoscopic markers are unreliable, making the true anatomical extent of the examination difficult to assess. The aim of this study was to assess the depth of insertion at flexible sigmoidoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two separate studies were done. In the first (study 1), magnetic endoscopic imaging was used to determine the final depth of insertion at non-sedated, screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. In the second (study 2), "real-time" imaging was utilized to determine sigmoid looping and the anatomical location of the endoscope tip after 60 cm of instrument had been inserted during total or limited colonoscopy. A total of 117 consecutive average-risk patients, aged 55-65 years participated in study 1, and 136 patients underwent either limited, (33) or attempted total colonoscopy (103) in study 2.
RESULTS: In study 1 the median insertion distance was 52 cm, range 20-58. In 61 % of patients the imaging system showed that the descending colon had not been visualized by the end of the procedure. Failure to reach the sigmoid/descending junction occurred in 29 (24%) patients. Reasons for failure included poor tolerance of the procedure due to pain (23 patients) inadequate preparation (3 patients) and, excessive looping (3 patients). In study 2, after 60 cm of instrument had been inserted, the splenic flexure or beyond was reached in 29% and the descending colon in 9%, whilst in 62 % the endoscope tip had not passed beyond the sigmoid/descending colon junction. A sigmoid loop formed in 70% of patients, and unusual loops such as the alpha, reverse alpha and reverse sigmoid spiral loop occurred more frequently in women compared to men (P = 0.0249). In those 104 patients where the splenic flexure was reached the mean maximum length of instrument inserted prior to reaching the flexure was 75.4 cm, (SD = 21.9).
CONCLUSIONS: Examination of the entire sigmoid was not achieved in approximately one-quarter of patients undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy, mainly because of discomfort. The descending colon is intubated in a minority of cases (using standard instruments), even after 60 cm has been inserted. Alternative instruments with different shaft characteristics (floppy, narrow calibre, 80-100 cm in length) may be necessary to ensure deeper routine intubation in nonsedated patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10344426     DOI: 10.1055/s-1999-13673

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  17 in total

1.  [Colorectal cancer in Germany. Means for prevention and early detection: implications for laiety and physicians].

Authors:  A Eickhoff; C Maar; B Birkner; J F Riemann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  Evaluation of flexible sigmoidoscopy as an investigation for "left sided" colorectal symptoms.

Authors:  S Papagrigoriadis; I Arunkumar; A Koreli; W A Corbett
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  Concerns and challenges in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.

Authors:  Akeem O Adebogun; Christine D Berg; Adeyinka O Laiyemo
Journal:  Colorectal Cancer       Date:  2012-08

4.  Changing patterns of colorectal cancer in China over a period of 20 years.

Authors:  Ming Li; Jin Gu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-08-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Amy B Knudsen; Ann G Zauber; Carolyn M Rutter; Steffie K Naber; V Paul Doria-Rose; Chester Pabiniak; Colden Johanson; Sara E Fischer; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Grading of distal colorectal adenomas as predictors for proximal colonic neoplasia and choice of endoscope in population screening: experience from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention study (NORCCAP).

Authors:  G Gondal; T Grotmol; B Hofstad; M Bretthauer; T J Eide; G Hoff
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Colonoscopy aided by magnetic 3D imaging: is the technique sufficiently sensitive to detect differences between men and women?

Authors:  R S Rowland; G D Bell; S Dogramadzi; C Allen
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.602

8.  Validation of Models Used to Inform Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines: Accuracy and Implications.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Amy B Knudsen; Tracey L Marsh; V Paul Doria-Rose; Eric Johnson; Chester Pabiniak; Karen M Kuntz; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Comfort and efficacy of a longer and thinner endoscope for average risk colon cancer screening.

Authors:  R Keith Fincher; Jonathan Myers; Scott McNear; John D Liveringhouse; Richard L Topolski; Jennifer McNear
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2007-03-30       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Should colorectal cancer screening be considered in elderly persons without previous screening? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Frank van Hees; J Dik F Habbema; Reinier G Meester; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.