Literature DB >> 15180728

Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy using an upper endoscope is better tolerated by women.

Francis A Farraye1, Kimberlee Horton, Harry Hersey, Yvona Trnka, Timothy Heeren, Dawn Provenzale.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) is a commonly used method for colorectal cancer screening. Women are more likely than men to have a FS with a limited depth of insertion, in part due to differences of anatomy and perception of pain. AIM: The objective of this prospective single-blinded randomized clinical study is to assess satisfaction in women undergoing screening FS using an upper endoscope (E, diameter 9.8 mm) versus a standard sigmoidoscope (S, diameter 13.3 mm) as measured by pain and discomfort and overall satisfaction using a validated survey instrument. Secondary endpoints of FS efficacy included the depth of insertion of the instrument, frequency of polyp detection, and complication rate.
RESULTS: A total of 160 asymptomatic women undergoing screening FS were entered over a 4-month period (July through November 2002). All procedures were performed by two experienced physician assistants. The two groups were of similar age (E = 57.5, S = 58.2, p= 0.579) and had a similar rate of previous abdominal surgery (E = 51.2%, S = 45.0%, p= 0.428) or hysterectomy (E = 34.2%, S = 26.3%, p= 0.274). Depth of insertion of the scope was 54.5 cm (+/-9.2 cm) with the E and 51.6 cm (+/- 10.3 cm) with the S (p= 0.058). Polyps were found more frequently in the study group (18.3%) compared with the control group (p= 10.2%) though this did not reach statistical significance (p= 0.131). Overall satisfaction with FS was similar in both groups (p= 0.694) but pain and discomfort were less in the patients undergoing FS using the E (p= 0.006). Controlling for age and previous surgery the differences in pain scores remained significant (p= 0.035). Endoscopist assessment of procedure difficulty (p= 0.726) and complication rates (p= 0.614) was equivalent. Controlling for the presence of polyps, the total duration for the procedure was 7.2 min in the E group and 5.7 min in the S group (p= 0.008). There were no significant differences between women with and without hysterectomy on either overall satisfaction or pain and discomfort.
CONCLUSION: Screening FS in women using an upper endoscope is a feasible approach to colorectal cancer screening. Patients screened with an upper endoscope reported less pain and discomfort compared to standard sigmoidoscope while overall satisfaction did not differ. The trend toward increased polyp detection in patients undergoing FS with an upper endoscope may be related to a more thorough examination due to less patient discomfort and/or an increased depth of insertion of the upper endoscope. Thinner, more flexible endoscopes should be considered when performing screening FS in women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15180728     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.30215.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  11 in total

1.  Colonoscopy using a small-caliber colonoscope with passive-bending after incomplete colonoscopy due to sharp angulation or pain.

Authors:  Koichiro Sato; Fumiko Shigiyama; Sayo Ito; Tomoyuki Kitagawa; Kenji Tominaga; Takeshi Suzuki; Iruru Maetani
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  A prospective randomized study of the use of an ultrathin colonoscope versus a pediatric colonoscope in sedation-optional colonoscopy.

Authors:  Koichiro Sato; Sayo Ito; Tomoyuki Kitagawa; Koichi Hirahata; Daisuke Hihara; Kenji Tominaga; Ichiro Yasuda; Iruru Maetani
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Colorectal cancer screening and prevention in women.

Authors:  Lyssa Chacko; Carole Macaron; Carol A Burke
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-01-18       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Incomplete screening flexible sigmoidoscopy associated with female sex, age, and increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  V P Doria-Rose; P A Newcomb; T R Levin
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-05-04       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 5.  Sex- and gender-specific disparities in colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  Sung-Eun Kim; Hee Young Paik; Hyuk Yoon; Jung Eun Lee; Nayoung Kim; Mi-Kyung Sung
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Routine colonoscopy with a standard gastroscope. A randomized comparative trial in a western population.

Authors:  Till Wehrmann; Izabel Lechowicz; Ksenia Martchenko; Andrea Riphaus
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  A risk profile for advanced proximal neoplasms on diagnostic colonoscopy.

Authors:  Thomas M Zarchy; Frank Tsai; Emily Ramicone; Linda S Chan
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2008-06-07       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  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

Review 9.  Quality in the technical performance of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy: recommendations of an international multi-society task group.

Authors:  T R Levin; F A Farraye; R E Schoen; G Hoff; W Atkin; J H Bond; S Winawer; R W Burt; D A Johnson; L M Kirk; S C Litin; D K Rex
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  Reasons for noncompliance with five-yearly screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  Charlie Henri Viiala; John Kevin Olynyk
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2008-02-02       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.